1 


READINGS   ON   PARTIES   AND    ELECTIONS 
IN   THE   UNITED    STATES 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO 
SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LIMITED 

LONDON    •    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LTD. 
TORONTO 


READINGS  ON 

PARTIES  AND  ELECTIONS 
IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 


BY 


CHESTER    LLOYD    JONES 

ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR  OF  POLITICAL   SCIENCE 
IN   THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  WISCONSIN 


THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 
1912 

All  rights  reserved 


COPYRIGHT,  1912, 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 

Set  up  and  clectrotyped.    Published  January,  1913. 


tforfoooto 

J.  8.  Gushing  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith  Co. 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


-Co 
CAROLINE  LLOYD   JONES 


261240 


PREFACE 


As  our  civilization  grows  more  complex  and  our  population 
greater,  the  organization  and  working  of  party  government  be- 
comes something  in  which  the  citizen  feels  an  increasing  inter- 
est. Whether  we  welcome  the  change  or  not,  the  state  plays 
a  growing  part  in  our  everyday  lives  ;  our  food  is  standardized, 
the  charge  for  moving  of  goods  or  persons  from  place  to  place 
is  regulated,  many  businesses  formerly  considered  private  are 
subjected  to  control  because  of  the  peculiar  relation  in  which 
they  stand  to  the  public.  The  house  of  the  citizen  is  no  longer 
his  castle  within  which  the  state  may  not  prescribe  the  manner 
k)f  life,  and  a  large  part  of  our  population  is  no  longer  "  free  " 
to  work  where  it  will  and  for  as  long  as  it  may  please. 

When  such  a  change  in  the  sphere  of  the  state  is  coming  over 
our  national  life,  it  becomes  important,  as  never  before,  that  the 
people  who  are  subject  to  regulation  should  exercise  control 
over  those  who  set  the  laws.  Party  is  the  means  by  which 
public  policy  is  determined.  To  have  efficient  control  we  must 
have  parties  responsive  to  the  popular  will,  parties  whose  actions 
turn  on  public  policy,  not  on  the  will  of  agents  whom  the  public 
cannot  control.  Government  of  the  people  is  government  by 
party  in  all  modern  states.  Clean  government  and  normal 
party  action  are  possible  in  a  democracy  only  when  those  who 
are  governed  understand  how  they  are  governed. 

It  is  to  make  easy  of  access  some  of  the  best  discussions 
illustrative  of  the  development,  present  organization,  abuses 
and  remedies  for  the  defects  of  our  party  government  that  this 
book  is  published.  It  is  not  a  source  book ;  indeed,  the  chief 
reliance  has  been  upon  secondary  and  contemporaneous  writing, 
but  it  is  believed  that  the  material  will,  for  this  reason,  have 

vii 


viii  Preface 

added  interest  because  it  deals  with  the  living,  growing  forces 
of  the  present  time. 

I  am  indebted  for  assistance  in  securing  the  material  for  this 
book  to  Dr.  Charles  McCarthy  of  the  Wisconsin  Legislative 
Reference  Library,  who  has  placed  the  invaluable  collection  of 
material  made  under  his  direction  at  my  disposal.  My  thanks 
are  due  to  the  authors  and  publishers  of  the  selections  for  their 
permission  to  reproduce  them.  Mr.  Leo  Tiefenthaler,  sometime 
assistant  in  political  science  in  the  University  of  Wisconsin, 
has  been  a  willing  collaborator  who  has  aided  much  by  criticism 

and  suggestion. 

CHESTER  LLOYD  JONES. 
MADISON,  WISCONSIN, 
November,  1911. 


CONTENTS 


I.  PARTY  CONTROL  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT 

PAGE 

irty  Government  in  England  and  the  United  States  Contrasted 
Goodnow,  F.  J.,  Politics  and  Administration.     Macmillan,  New 

York,  1900^  p.  148  et seq I 

The  Conditions  of  Party  Government  in  the  United  States 

Smith,  J.  A.,  The  Spirit  of  the  American  Government.     Macmil- 
lan, New  York,  1907  ;   p.  203  et  seq.  (excerpt)  .         .         .         .12 
The  Necessity  of  Strong  Parties  in  the  United  States 

Wilson,  W.,  Constitutional  Government   in  the  United  States. 
Columbia  University  Press,  New  York,  1908 ;  p.  204  et  seq.      .      20 


II.    THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PARTY  ORGANIZATION 
IN  THE  UNITED   STATES 

1.  The  Early  Fear  of  Party  Influence 

(a)  Madison,  J.,  In  the  Federalist,  No.  X,  1787  .         .         .         .28 
(£)  Washington,  G.,  Farewell  Address.     Writings  of  Washing- 
ton,  Evans,   L.   B.,   ed.       Putnams,   New   York,    1908 ; 
p.  531  etseq.  (excerpt) 33 

2.  Early  Mention  of  Caucuses  and  their  Importance 

Adams,  John,  The  Works  of  John  Adams,  edited  by  C.  F.  Adams. 
Little  and  Brown,  Boston,  1850;   Vol.  II,  p.  144  37 

3.  The  Congressional  Caucus 

Ostrogorski,  M.,  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political 

Parties.     Macmillan,  New  York,  1902  ;   Vol.  II,  pp.  13-19      .       38 

4.  How  the  Congressional  Nominating  Caucus  Worked 

Niles,  Weekly  Register,  I,  3d  ser.,  p.  388  et  seq 44 

5.  The  Transition  from  the  Congressional  Caucus  to  the  Nominating 

Convention 

Dallinger,  F.  W.,  Nominations  for  Elective  Office.     Longmans, 
New  York,  1903  ;   pp.  29-34 46 


Contents 


III.    THE  CONVENTION  AND  THE  DIRECT  PRIMARY 

PAGE 

1.  The  Strength  of  the  Conversion  System 

Meyer,  E.  C,  Nominating  Systems.     Madison,  Wisconsin,  1902; 
pp.  48-54 53 

2.  The  Corrupt  Convention 

La  Follette,  R.  M.,  Primary  Elections.     Address  delivered  before 
Michigan  University,  Ann  Arbor,  Michigan,  March  12,  1898    .       57 

3.  Weaknesses  of  the  Convention  System 

Meyer,  E.  C.,  Nominating  Systems.     Madison,  Wisconsin,  1902; 

p.  57  et  seq.        . 63 

4.  Non-Partisan  Municipal  Primary  Elections 

Laws  of  Iowa,  Chap.  48,  1907  (excerpt) 67 

5.  Legislation  Needed  to  Supplement  Primary  Election  Laws 

Merriam,  C.  E.,  Primary  Elections.     University  of  Chicago  Press ; 
pp.  163-176 71 

IV.    THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  AND  THE  ELECTION 
OF  THE  PRESIDENT 

1.  The  Composition  of  the  National  Convention 

Woodburn,  J.  A.,  Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the 
United  States.     Putnams,  New  York,  1906 ;   pp.  152-162         .       80 

2.  The  Call  of  a  National  Convention 

Official  Call,  by  the  Republican  Committee,  1908          ...       86 

3.  The  Work  of  the  National  Convention 

Woodburn,  J.  A.,  Political   Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the 
United  States.     Putnams,  New  York,  1906;   pp.  176-196         .       89 

4.  A  Favorite  Son  Boom 

Milwaukee  Sentinel,  June  17,  1908 99 

5.  Convention  Enthusiasm 

Milwaukee  Free  Press,  June  19,  1908 101 

6.  Convention  Oratory 

Cochems,  H.  F.,  Speech  nominating  Robert  M.  La  Follette  for 
President,  1908 103 

7.  The  Election  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 

Fuller,  R.  H.,  Government  by  the  People.     Macmillan,   1908; 
pp.  120-134 106 

8.  The  Electoral  College 

Gauss,  H.  C.,  The  American  Government.     Hammersly,  L.  R.  & 
Co.,  New  York,  1908  ;   pp.  19-22 115 


Contents  xi 


The  Electoral  College,  its  Defects 

Dougherty,  J.  H.,  The  Electoral  System  of  the  United  States. 
G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons,  New  York;  pp.  281-324         .         .         .118 


V.    SENATORIAL  ELECTIONS 

1.  Constitutional   and   Legal   Provisions   concerning  the   Election  of 

United  States  Senators 

(a)  United  States  Constitution 125 

(£)  United  States  Statutes 126 

(<r)  A  State  Law  on  the  Election  of  United  States  SenatorsXPa.)     127 

2.  A  Corrupt  Senatorial  Election 

Connolly,  C.  P.,  The  Story  of  Montana.     McClure's,  Nov.,  1906 ; 
Vol.  28,  No.  I,  pp.  41-43  and  p.  27 129 

3.  Why  we  Should  Have  Popular  Election  of  Senators 

Haynes,  G.  H.,  The  Election  of  Senators.     Henry  Holt  &  Co., 
New  York,  1906  ;   p.  z^g  et  seq 136 

4.  The  Oregon  Method  of  Electing  United  States  Senators 

Bourne,  Jr.,  J.,  Popular  Government  in  Oregon.    Outlook,  Vol.  96,  •», 
No.  6,  Oct.  8,  1910;  p.  324  <?/*<?£ 141 


VI.    ELECTIONS  TO  THE   HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 
AND  TO  THE  STATE  LEGISLATURE 

1.  The  Abuse  of  Apportionments  and  Single  Member  Districts 

Commons,  J.  R.,  Proportional  Representation.     Macmillan,  New 
York,  1907  ;   p.  48  et  seq.  and  80  et  seq 147 

2.  Gerrymander  of  State  Legislative  Districts 

Revised  Record  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  New  York, 
1894;   Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1083,  1162;   Vol.  IV,  p.  34  et  seq.      .         .     151 

3.  The  Federal  Law  Requiring  Single  Member  Districts  for  the  Election 

of  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
United  States  Statutes  at  Large.     Vol.  V,  p.  491  ;  June  25,  1842      156 

4.  Constitutional  Limitations  on  Apportionments 

Reinsch,  P.  S.,  American  Legislatures  and  Legislative  Methods. 
Century  Co.,  New  York,  1907  ;   pp.  204-213     ....     157 

5.  Some  Types  of  Proportional  Representation 

Robert  Tyson.     Equity,  Jan.,  1911        .         ,         . 


xii  Contents 


VII.    PARTY  ORGANIZATION 

PAGE 

1.  Party  Regularity 

Ford,  H.  J.,  Rise  and  Growth  of  American  Politics.  Macmillan, 
New  York,  1900  ;  pp.  325-333 169 

2.  What  the  Party  Machine  has  to  Do 

Bryce,  J.,  The  American  Commonwealth.  Macmillan,  New  York, 
1910;  Vol.  II,  pp.  93-100 175 

3.  How  the  Party  is  Organized 

Jenks,  J.  W.,  Money  in  Practical  Politics.  Century,  Vol.  44, 
1892;  p.  941 178 

4.  A  Day  with  a  Local  Politician 

Evening  Post  (New  York),  Dec.  14,  1907 179 

5.  Political  Clubs 

Ostrogorski,  M.,  Democracy  and  the  Party  System.  Macmillan, 
New  York,  1910;  pp.  166-170 181 

6.  The  Contrast  of  Country  and  City  Electorates 

Bryce,  J.,  The  American  Commonwealth.  Macmillan,  New  York, 
1910  ;  Vol.  II,  pp.  101-104 184 

7.  State  Central  Committees 

Merriam,  C.  E.,  Political  Science  Quarterly,  1904 ;  pp.  224-233  .     188 

8.  The  Party  Machine  in  Pennsylvania 

Wanamaker,  John,  Speeches  on  Quayism  and  Boss  Domination 
in  Pennsylvania  Politics.  Published  by  the  Business  Men's 
Republican  League  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia. 
Undated  (1898?);  pp.  231-235 193 

9.  Rules  of  the  Republican  Party  in  Pennsylvania 

Adopted  in  State  Convention  held  at  Harrisburg,  Aug.  24,  1899       197 

10.  The  Powers  of  the  National  Committee 

Ogden,  Rollo,  New  Powers  of  the  National  Committee.  Atlantic 
Monthly,  Vol.  89,  1902  ;  p.  76  et  seq 199 

11.  The  President  as  a  Party  Leader 

Wilson,  W.,  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States. 
Columbia  University  Press,  New  York,  1908 ;  Chap.  Ill  (ex- 
cerpts)   2VK 


VIII.    THE  BALLOT 

I.  The  Australian  Ballot 

Shaw,  W.  B.,  Good  Ballot  Laws  and  Bad.     Outlook,  Dec.  9,  1905  ; 
pp.  864-867 212 


Contents  xiii 


2.  Forms  of  Ballot 

Allen,  Philip  L.,  Ballot  Laws  and  their  Workings.  Political  Sci- 
ence Quarterly,  Vol.  XXI,  No.  I,  1906 214 

3.  The  Advantages  of  the  Massachusetts  Ballot 

Dana,  Richard  Henry,  The  Form  of  Ballot.  City  Club  Bulletin, 
City  Club  of  Philadelphia,  April  21,  1910  .  .  .  .  220 

4.  The  Federal  Act  Requiring  Written  or  Printed  Ballots  for  the  Elec- 

tion of  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  17,  p.  61,  May  3,  1872        .     224 

5.  Ballot  Reform,  Need  of  Simplification 

Childs,  R.  S.,  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Asso- 
ciation, Vol.  VI,  1909 ;  pp.  65-70 225 

6.  Women  and  the  Suffrage 

Howe,  Julia  Ward.  The  Case  for  Woman  Suffrage.  Outlook, 
April  3,  1909  ;  pp.  780-784 232 

7.  An  Argument  against  Woman  Suffrage 

M'Intire,  Mary  A.  J.,  Of  What  Benefit  to  Women.  Pamphlet 
printed  by  the  Massachusetts  Association  opposed  to  Exten- 
sion of  Woman  Suffrage  (excerpt) 236 

8.  The  Negro's  Right  to  Vote  ;  its  Denial 

Rose,  J.  C.,  Negro  Suffrage.  American  Political  Science  Review, 
Vol.  I,  p.  i^etseq 244 

IX.    PARTY   PROBLEMS  AND   REMEDIES 

1.  Party  Influence  in  Federal  Appointments 

Bryce,  J.,  The  American  Commonwealth.  Macmillan,  New  York, 
1910;  Vol.  I,  pp.  61-65 25J 

2.  Machine  Politics  in  the  Lincoln  Administration 

Stickney,   A.,   Organized   Democracy.      Houghton,  New  York, 

1906;   p.  188  et  seq 256 

3.  Limiting  Partisan  Activity  of  Officeholders 

United  States  Civil  Service  Commission,  July,  1910      .         .         .     260 

4.  The  Present  Federal  Civil  Service  and  its  Need  of  Further  Reform 

Eliot,  C.  W.,  Annual  Address  as  President  of  the  National  Civil 
Service  Reform  League.  Good  Government,  New  York,  Jan., 
19" 267 

5.  Legal  Repression  of  Political  Corruption 

McGovern,  F.  E.,  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science 
Association  1907  ;  pp.  266-276 274 

6.  Violence  at  Elections 

Public  Ledger  (Philadelphia),  Nov.  3,  1909         ....     282 


xiv  Contents 

FACE 

7.  Defeating  the  Australian  Ballot  by  the  "  Assisted  "  Vote 

Kennan,  G.,  Outlook,  Feb.  22,  1903  ;  p.  432  et  seg.      .         .         .     285 

8.  Repeating 

Finch,  E.  R.,  The  Fight  for  a  Clean  Ballot.     Independent,  May 

12,   IQIO 288 

9.  The  Effect  of  Vote  Buying  on  the  Voters 

Jenks,  J.  W.,  Money  in  Practical  Politics.  Century,  Vol.  44, 
1892;  p.  947  .  . 296 

10.  The  Power  of  the  United  States  to  Regulate  Elections  to  the  House 

of  Representatives 
Ex  parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  371,  1879  (excerpt)  ....     298 

11.  Publicity  of  Campaign  Contributions 

Brooks,  R.  C.,  Corruption  in  American  Politics  and  Life.  Dodd, 
Mead  and  Co.,  New  York,  1910;  pp.  229-237  .  .  .  302 

12.  The  Campaign  War  Chest 

Carr,  J.  F.,  Campaign  Funds  and  Campaign  Scandals.  Outlook, 
Nov.  4,  1905  .' 306 

13.  Campaign  Expenditures  and  Publicity 

Bourne,  Jr.,  J.,  Speech  in  United  States  Senate.  Thurs.,  May  5, 
1910;  p.  13  (pam.) 314 

14.  The  Corrupt  Practice  Laws  of  Maryland 

Lowrie,  S.  G.,  Corrupt  Practices  at  Elections,  Madison,  Wiscon- 
sin, 1911.  Wisconsin  Legislative  Reference  Library,  pp.  38- 
40 319 

15.  The  Chicago  Municipal  Voters'  League 

(a)  Its  Organization :  The  Municipal  Voters'  League,  What  It 

Really  Is  (pam.) 321 

(£)  Its  Platform.  Chicago  Record-Herald,  Mar.  29,  1911  (ex- 
cerpt)   324 

(c)  Its  Estimate  of  Candidates.  Extract  from  Report  in  Chicago 

Record-Herald,  Mar.  24,  1911 325 

16.  National  Parties  in  Local  Elections 

Lowell,  F.  C.,  The  American  Boss.  Atlantic  Monthly,  1900; 
pp.  292-293 327 

17.  Municipal  Politics  and  Bossism 

Deming,  H.  E.,  Government  of  American  Cities.  G.  P.  Putnam's 
Sons,  New  York,  1910;  pp.  192-197 330 

X.    DIRECT  LEGISLATION  AND  THE  RECALL 

i.  The  Initiative  and  Referendum 

Constitution  of  Oregon,  Articles  IV  and  XVII      ....     335 


Contents 


xv 


The  Weakness  of  Direct  Legislation 

Sanborn,  J.  B.,  Popular  Legislation  in  the  United  States.     Politi- 
cal Science  Quarterly,  Vol.  23,  Dec.,  1908  ;   p.  587  et  seq.          .     338 

3.  Objections  to  Direct  Legislation  Examined 

Lobinger,  C.  S.     Arena,  Vol.  34,  1905  ;   pp.  234-240  .         .         -345 

4.  The  Recall  in  Oregon 

Bourne,  Jr.,  J.,  Popular  Government  in  Oregon.     Outlook,  Vol. 

96,  No.  6,  Oct.  8,  1910;  p.  329 351 

The  Recall  in  Arizona 

Constitution  of  Arizona,  Art.  VIII,  1910 352 


READINGS  ON  PARTIES  AND  ELECTIONS 


I.  PARTY  CONTROL  OF  THE  GOVERNMENT 

I.     PARTY    GOVERNMENT   IN   ENGLAND  AND  THE   UNITED   STATES 
CONTRASTED  1 

The  basis  of  the  democratic  thought  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury is  the  expression  of  the  popular  will  in  government.  The 
means  adopted  to  accomplish  the  result  is  the  political  party. 
In  England  it  expresses  the  popular  will  from  within  the  govern- 
ment; in  the  United  States  it  imposes  its  control  from  without. 

POPULAR  government  has  unquestionably  been  the  political 
ideal  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Its  realization  has  been  the 
end  of  most  of  the  changes  which  have  been  made  during  the 
century  in  the  political  institutions  of  nations  enjoying  western 
European  civilization.  This  is  seen  in  the  steadily  increasing 
participation  of  the  people  in  the  work  of  government,  accorded 
by  the  constitutions  which  have  been  adopted,  the  laws  which 
have  been  passed,  and  the  extra-governmental  and  extra- 
constitutional  devices  to  which  resort  has  been  had.  In  all 
the  western  European  countries,  including  within  them  the 
United  States,  which  possess  written  constitutions,  the  newer 
constitutions,  and  in  England,  which  has  no  such  instrument, 
the  statutes  of  Parliament,  have  widened  the  suffrage. 

The  frame  of  government  itself  has  been  so  changed,  either 
by  constitutional  provision  or  by  extra-constitutional  device, 
as  to  give  the  people  themselves  or  the  people's  representatives 
greater  control  over  the  actual  conduct  of  government.  In 
England  the  establishment  of  cabinet  government  has  made 

1  Goodnow,  F.  J.,  Politics  and  Administration.  Macmillan,  Ne\y  York, 
1900 ;  pp.  148-167. 


2  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  House  of  Commons,  the  representative  of  the  people,  the 
controlling  governmental  authority.  In  the  United  States  the 
nomination  of  the  President  by  the  party  conventions  has 
brought  the  choice  of  the  President  one  degree  nearer  the  people 
than  was  originally  contemplated  by  the  Constitution. 

And  yet,  notwithstanding  that  popular  government  has  thus 
been  the  ideal  of  the  nineteenth  century,  few  of  the  persons 
who  hold  this  ideal  have  a  clear  idea  of  what  popular  govern- 
ment in  its  concrete  manifestations  really  is.  It  is  unquestion- 
ably true  that  most  persons  regard  popular  government  as  a 
system  of  government  in  which  decisions  as  to  political  con- 
duct are  the  result  of  the  conscious  deliberations  of  the  people. 
It  is,  however,  just  as  unquestionably  true  that  the  forms  of 
government  which  we  are  accustomed  to  regard  as  popular, 
and  which  are  to  be  found  in  conditions  of  life  at  all  complex, 
do  not  generally  provide  for  any  such  conscious  deliberation 
on  the  part  of  the  people. 

Where  conditions  of  life  are  at  all  complex,  i.e.  where  the 
population  is  numerous  and  not  thoroughly  homogeneous, 
where  the  territory  to  be  governed  is  extended  and  the  distri- 
bution of  wealth  and  intelligence  is  not  comparatively  equal, 
the  necessities  of  the  case  have  developed  alongside  of  the 
formal  governmental  system  more  or  less  voluntary  extra- 
governmental  organizations,  which  exercise  a  controlling  in- 
fluence on  the  formal  governmental  system.  As  Mr.  Lowell 
points  out,  "A  superficial  glance  at  the  history  of  democracy 
ought  to  be  enough  to  convince  us  that  in  a  great  nation  the 
people  as  a  whole  do  not  and  cannot  really  govern.  The  fact 
is  that  we  are  ruled  by  parties  whose  action  is  more  or  less 
modified,  but  never  completely  directed,  by  public  opinion  .  .  . 
always  more  or  less  warped  by  the  existence  of  party  ties." 
Parties,  although  formed  to  secure  certain  ends,  get  to  be 
ends  in  and  of  themselves.  Party  allegiance  gets  to  replace, 
as  a  primary  motive  of  conduct,  adherence  to  political  principle. 
The  perpetuation  of  the  party  often  appears  more  important 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  3 

than  the  ends  for  whose  attainment  the  party  itself  originally 
was  formed. 

Party  leaders,  on  account  of  this  important  position  assumed 
by  the  parties,  often  assume  more  importance  as  controlling 
factors  in  the  political  system  than  governmental  officers. 
The  aims  of  these  party  leaders  must  in  large  degree  be  the 
same  as  the  aims  of  the  party  which  they  lead.  They  must 
strive  in  first  instance  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  party.  For 
the  party  is  the  instrument  through  which  the  ends  for  which 
the  party  was  formed  can  be  attained.  The  maintaining  in  its 
integrity  and  power  of  the  party  organization  and  the  preserva- 
tion of  successful  party  leadership  are  so  necessary  to  the  attain- 
ment of  the  ultimate  ends  of  the  party  that  the  role  of  the 
members  of  the  party  ceases  to  be  the  positive  determination 
of  the  party  policy,  and  is  reduced  to  the  amendment  or  nega- 
tiving of  propositions  made  by  the  party  leaders.  A  body  in 
which  all  shades  of  opinion  exist  and  find  expression  is  apt  to 
be  a  debating  society  merely,  incapable  of  positive  action. 
But  parties  are  formed  for  action  rather  than  debate.  They 
must  accomplish  something  positive  in  the  world  of  action. 
They  must  therefore  follow  rather  than  lead,  and  in  order  that 
they  may  follow  they  must  have  leaders  capable  of  originating 
a  policy  which  will  approve  itself  to  the  party  membership. 

Now,  in  order  that  government  under  parties  shall  be  popu- 
lar, conditions  must  be  such,  both  that  the  party,  in  whom 
the  people  as  a  whole  do  not  have  confidence,  shall  retire  from 
the  active  control  of  the  government,  and  that  party  leaders 
who  in  like  manner  have  forfeited  the  confidence  of  the  party 
shall  retire  from  active  control  of  the  party.  If  these  condi- 
tions do  not  exist,  the  system  of  government  cannot  be  said  to 
be  popular.  If  they  do  exist,  the  government  is  probably  as 
nearly  popular  as  government  ever  has  been  or  ever  can  be 
expected  to  be  in  any  except  the  most  primitive  and  simple 
social  conditions.  Certainly  in  the  governments  of  states, 
possessing  a  highly  developed  civilization,  with  which  we  are 


4  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

acquainted,  the  people  as  a  whole  have  had  no  greater  in- 
fluence on  the  conduct  of  public  affairs.  England,  whose 
government  may,  perhaps,  with  the  exceptions  of  the  United 
States  and  Switzerland,  be  regarded  as  the  most  popular  in 
existence,  is  a  good  example  of  this  fact. 

When,  after  the  struggles  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Parlia- 
ment came  to  be  regarded  as  the  supreme  authority  in  the  Eng- 
lish government,  no  attempt  was  made  by  that  body  to  carry  on 
the  government  in  the  sense  that  it  was  to  formulate  a  policy  to 
be  executed  by  the  Crown.  On  the  contrary,  Parliament  was 
content  to  play  the  subordinate  role  of  approving  or  disapprov- 
ing a  policy  formulated  by  the  Crown.  (Such  is  the  present 
condition  in  Germany,  where  strong  parties  have  not  developed.) 
The  attempt  made  by  William  III  to  obtain  the  approval  of  his 
policy  by  Parliament  through  choosing  as  his  ministers  persons 
who  had  its  confidence,  soon  led,  under  sovereigns  less  strong 
and  less  able,  to  Parliament's  dictating  to  the  Crown  whom  it 
should  appoint  as  its  ministers.  As  Mr.  Lowell  remarks,  "The 
system  which  had  been  devised  in  order  that  the  king  might  con- 
trol the  House  of  Commons  became,  therefore,  the  means  by 
which  the  House  of  Commons  through  its  leaders  controlled  the 
king,  and  thus  all  the  powers  of  the  House  of  Commons  and  the 
Crown  became  vested  in  the  same  men,  who  guided  legislation 
charge  .o&'$dministration  at  the  same  time." 

on  of^fee^Crown  to  the  position  of  one  who  reigned 
but  did  not  govern  did  net,  however,  result,  as  might  at  first  be 
supposed,  in  the  adoption  of  the  principle  that  the  popular  body 
could  formulate  policies  to  be  executed  by  its  servants.  For, 
as  Mr.  Lowell  says,  the  ministers  not  only  "took  charge  of  the 
administration,"  but  also  "guided  legislation."  It  might  be 
added  that  they  also,  as  a  result  of  their  party  leadership,  do 
much  in  the  election  campaigns  to  determine  the  membership  of 
the  House  of  Commons  whose  legislation  as  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  that  body  they  guide. 

Of  course  the  present  position  of  the  ministers  as  leaders  at 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  5 

the  same  time  of  legislation  and  administration  was  not  at  once 
worked  out.  But  just  so  soon  as  this  position  was  determined, 
and  the  localities  in  the  kingdom,  through  the  process  of  admin- 
istrative centralization  which  has  been  going  on  through  this 
century,  had  been  subordinated  to  the  central  government,  the 
ministers  became  heirs  to  all  the  old  powers  of  the  English 
Crown,  the  recognized  sovereign  of  the  English  people,  and  as 
such  sovereign,  from  the  legal  point  of  view  exercising  all  powers 
of  government. 

At  the  present  time  the  ministers  unite  in  their  hands  powers 
of  legislation  and  powers  of  administration  with  regard  to  both 
the  central  and  local  governments.  They  both  formulate  poli- 
cies and  execute  them  after  their  formulation;  and  so  long  as 
their  action  meets  with  the  approval  of  Parliament  whose  repre- 
sentatives they  are,  there  is  none  to  gainsay  them.  If,  however, 
they  fail  to  gain  such  approval,  in  accordance  with  constitu- 
tional practice,  they  must  resign  their  powers  to  others  whose 
policy  is  approved  by  Parliament.  Finally,  in  order  to  make 
Parliament  representative  of  the  people,  who  in  greater  and 
greater  numbers  have  been  'given  the  suffrage,  the  ministers  are 
permitted  to  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  Parliament  to  the  peo- 
ple ;  while  Parliament  itself,  in  case  no  such  appeal  was  taken, 
is  accustomed  to  dissolve  of  its  own  accord  at  least  once  in  seven 
years.1 

In  this  way  the  entire  English  government  is  made  respon- 
sible to  Parliament,  which  in  its  turn  is  responsible  to  the  people. 
Such  a  system  of  government  requires  for  its  successful  working 
the  existence  of  reasonably  strong  and  coherent  parties,  whose 
leaders  are  the  ministers  of  the  government  when  their  party  is 
in  power.  It  does  not,  however,  make  nearly  the  demands  on 
the  party  that  are  made  by  the  American  system  of  government/ 
The  necessary  coordination  of  the  expression  and  execution  of 
the  will  of  the  state  is  obtained  in,  not  outside  of,  the  govern- 

1The  duration  of  a  Parliament  was  reduced  in  1911  to  five  years  instead 
of  seven  (Ed.). 


6  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

mental  system.  Further,  while  no  attempt  is  made  in  such  a 
system  to  adopt  the  democratic  ideal,  as  it  has  been  described, 
that  is  to  assure  to  the  people  or  their  representatives  the  formu- 
lation of  policies  whose  execution  is  intrusted  to  ministerial 
subordinates,  the  system  does  secure  to  the  representatives  of 
the  people  and  to  the  people  as  a  whole  the  .power  to  say  nay 
to  a  policy  of  which  they  do  not  approve,  and  does  insure  that 
in  case  of  the  expression  of  such  disapproval  the  persons  in 
charge  of  the  government  shall  give  way  to  others  more  in  ac- 
cord with  the  popular  mind.  .  . 

The  condition  of  things  in  this  country  is  from  the  formal 
and  theoretical  point  of  view  much  the  same  as  in  England.  In- 
deed, if  anything,  the  formal  American  system  of  government 
would  seem  to  assure  greater  popular  responsibility  than  the 
English.  The  formal  American  executive  is  not  hereditary  as 
is  the  English  Crown.  Both,  houses  of  the  American  legislature 
have  their  origin  in  a  direct  or  indirect  popular  vote,  while  mem- 
bership in  the  English  House  of  Lords  is  inherited. 

The  actual  political  conditions  in  America  do  not,  however, 
permit  of  as  great  popular  responsibility  upon  the  part  of  the 
government  as  is  secured  by  the  actual  political  conditions  in 
England.  When  the  governments  of  the  states  of  the  United 
States  were  formed  they  evidenced  the  influence  of  the  demo- 
cratic ideal  to  which  cohesion  has  been  made.  That  is,  they 
were  organized  in  such  a  way  that  questions  of  policy  were  to  be 
determined  by  popular  representative  bodies  —  the  legislatures 
—  which  were  elected  by  a  comparatively  large  number  of  peo- 
ple. These  bodies  not  merely  had  the  power  to  veto  proposals 
made  to  them  by  the  executive,  but  also  themselves  initiated 
policies,  all  the  details  of  which  they  themselves  determined. 
These  policies  were  to  be  put  into  execution  by  other  organs  of 
government  regarded  as  servants  of  the  legislature,  but  on  ac- 
count of  their  independent  position  not  really  subject  to  an 
effective  legislative  control. 

Now  while  the  ideal  of  democracy  was  realized  in  the  formal 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  7 

governmental  systems  thus  established  in  the  states,  it  was  an 
ideal  which  was  not  realized  in  actual  political  practice.  This 
ideal  was  not  realized,  although  the  form  of  government  based 
upon  it  continued  in  existence.  That  it  was  not  realized  was 
due  to  the  character  of  the  political  party  organization  through 
which  the  government  came  to  be  carried  on. 

The  earliest  records  we  have  of  the  organization  and  action 
of  the  political  parties  which  were  in  existence  at  the  time  of 
the  establishment  of  our  state  governments  show  that,  notwith- 
standing the  democratic  forms  of  government,  the  actual  deter- 
mination of  the  popular  will  was  very  largely  controlled  by  a 
few  people,  who,  by  shrewd  manipulation,  and  in  some  cases  by 
questionable  practices,  succeeded  in  forcing  or  persuading  the 
voters  to  follow  their  lead.  .  . 

This  party  system  did  not,  however,  fulfill  the  ideals  of  de- 
mocracy, and  the  attempt  was  made  almost  everywhere  in  this 
country  to  democratize  the  party  machinery,  so  that  it  might  in 
its  outward  manifestations  conform  to  the  ideals  of  democracy 
as  expressed  in  the  form  of  government  which  had  been  adopted. 
The  party  organization  was,  therefore,  almost  everywhere  re- 
modelled. The  party  voters  everywhere  insisted  that  meetings 
should  be  held  at  which  all  of  the  members  of  the  party  might  be 
present  and  act  in  the  nomination  of  candidates,  or  in  the  elec- 
tion of  delegates  to  act  for  them  in  conventions  established  for 
districts  which  were  too  large  to  permit  of  the  direct  action  of 
the  party  members  in  the  nomination  of  candidates. 

Senator  Dallinger  says,  "By  the  beginning  of  the  Revolution, 
the  caucus  or  primary  had  become  pretty  well  established  in  New 
England  and  the  Middle  States.  With  the  close  of  the  war  it 
gradually  lost  its  secret  character  which  had  been  rendered  neces- 
sary by  the  exigencies  of  the  time,  and  became  a  miniature  town 
meeting  of  the  party  voters  of  the  ward  or  district.  In  New  Eng- 
land, except  in  some  of  the  large  cities,  and  in  those  sections  of 
the  country  settled  by  New  England  people,  the  caucus  still 
retains  its  original  town  meeting  character.  But  in  the  other 


8  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

states  with  the  growth  of  population  the  'primary'  has  come  to 
be  a  mere  polling-place  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  various 
conventions  and  of  members  of  the  local  party  committee,  there 
being  no  opportunity  whatever  for  any  discussion  of  the  merits 
of  the  various  candidates.  The  inevitable  result  has  been  that 
the  real  work  of  nomination  has  largely  fallen  either  into  the 
hands  of  ' parlor  caucuses  '  ("The  reader  is  not  to  infer  that 
there  are  no  parlor  caucuses  in  New  England;  but  where  the 
caucus  is  a  small  body  and  opportunity  is  afforded  for  popular 
discussion  of  the  merits  of  candidates,  there  is  always  a  chance 
of  breaking  a  '  slate '  of  a  previous  parlor  caucus  which  does  not 
exist  where  the  primary  is  only  a  polling-place.")  or  of  political 
committees  and  clubs  —  the  power  of  the  individual  voter 
being  restricted  to  the  choice  between  candidates  agreed 
upon  at  such  preliminary  secret  conferences  or  named  by 
such  organizations." 

The  result  of  the  development  of  party  organization  in  the 
United  States  has  been  that,  notwithstanding  the  democratic 
form  of  the  government  and  the  likewise  formally  democratic 
character  of  the  party  organization,  the  political  functions  of 
the  ordinary  individual  are  confined  to  saying  "Yes"  or  "No" 
to  propositions  made  to  him  relative  to  the  nomination  or  elec- 
tion of  persons  proposed  for  political  or  party  office  by  those  in 
_cpntrol  of  the  party  organization.  The  only  instances  where  the 
voters  of  the  party  have  positive  initiation  in  the  determination 
of  who  shall  be  the  party  candidates  are,  according  to  Senator 
Dallinger,  in  the  rural  districts  of  New  England.  Here  the 
primary  or  caucus  is  described  as  "  a  miniature  town  meeting 
of  the  party  voters,"  where  "opportunity  is  afforded  for  public 
discussion  of  the  merits  of  candidates,"  and  "there  is  always  a 
chance  of  breaking  a  'slate'  made  at  a  previous  parlor  caucus." 
The  reason  why  these  exceptional  conditions  are  found  in  the 
rural  districts  of  New  England  is  not  far  to  seek.  There  we  find 
both  the  conditions  most  favorable  to  the  development  of  democ- 
racy, and  a  local-government  system  which  almost  from  the 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  9 

beginning  of  the  history  of  the  country  has  accustomed  the  peo- 
ple as  a  whole  to  participate  in  politics.  But  even  here  it  is  to 
be  noticed  that  the  parlor  caucus  is  not  unknown,  and  the  actual 
form  of  political  action  may  consist  rather  in  breaking  than  in 
making  a  slate. 

Actual  political  conditions  in  the  United  States  thus  resemble 
actual  political  conditions  in  England  in  that  the  people  have 
little  positive  power  in  formulating  and  putting  into  execution 
their  ideas  relative  to  political  conduct. 

Does  the  American  system,  however,  resemble  the  English 
system  in  allowing  the  people  both  to  retire  from  power  a  party 
in  which  they  do  not  have  confidence,  and  to  retire  from  party 
leadership  a  party  leader  when  they  have  ceased  to  approve  of 
his  policy? 

If  we  consider  this  question  merely  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  governmental  system,  we  must  at  once  admit  that  the 
American  system  is  not  of  such  a  character  as  to  admit  of  as 
immediate  responsiveness  to  the  public  will  as  is  assured  by  the 
English  system.  Cabinet  government,  whatever  may  be  its 
defects,  does  assure  the  possibility  of  at  once  finding  out  what  is 
public  opinion,  so  far  as  that  is  represented  in  Parliament,  and 
of  making  that  opinion  effective.  Presidential  government,  as 
our  system  has  been  called,  makes  this  impossible  on  ac- 
count of  the  independent  position  of  the  executive.  Differences 
between  the  legislative  and  the  executive  cannot  be  settled  un- 
til the  time  fixed  by  the  Constitution  for  the  general  elections. 
The  fact  that  the  legislature  and  the  executive  are  elected  in 
different  ways  makes  it  possible  for  such  differences  to  exist  im- 
mediately after  the  election.  The  governmental  system  being 
fixed  in  a  written  constitution  cannot  be  changed  by  custom. 
Constitutional  amendment  is,  in  our  experience,  a  slow  and 
almost  impossible  method  of  political  growth. 

The  parties  have  had  to  develop  extraordinary  strength  in 
order  to  be  able  to  bring  about  harmony  in  the  government. 
They  had  not  merely  to  be  very  strong,  they  had  also  to  be  quite 


io  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

permanent,  for  they  had  to  strive  to  control  all  branches  of  the 
government  for  quite  a  long  period  of  time  if  they  were  to  hope 
to  see  realized  in  political  conduct  the  principles  for  which  they 
were  formed.  Notwithstanding  this  strength  and  permanence, 
parties  are  only  partially  successful  in  doing  the  work  devolved 
upon  them  by  the  American  governmental  system.  There  are 
too  many  instances  of  governmental  deadlocks  in  our  political 
life  to  permit  us  to  believe  that  the  efforts  of  parties  have  been 
absolutely  successful. 

This  great  strength,  this  comparative  permanence,  which  it  is 
necessary  that  parties  should  have  in  order  to  do  the  work  de- 
volved upon  them  by  the  formal  governmental  system,  have 
unquestionably  caused  the  party  organizations  to  be  less  re- 
sponsive to  the  party  will  than  is  desirable.  The  individual 
members  of  the  party  have  not  only  not  been  able  to  make  the 
party  leaders  as  responsive  as  might  be  wished,  they  have  not 
desired  to  insist  upon  as  full  a  measure  of  responsibility  from 
party  leaders  as  is  desirable  from  their  fear  of  weakening  the 
party.  This  unwillingness  on  their  part  is  in  large  measure  due 
to  their  appreciation  of  the  enormous  task  which  our  govern- 
mental system  devolves  upon  the  party,  and  to  the  feeling 
that  the  accomplishment  of  this  task  makes  necessary  that  they 
evince  willingness  to  forego  a  part  of  their  political  privileges,  if 
through  such  action  the  party  to  which  they  have  attached  them- 
selves can  be  successful  in  obtaining  control  of  the  government. 
As  in  the  case  of  national  danger,  the  citizen  is  willing  to  pardon 
a  degree  of  arbitrary  action  on  the  part  of  the  government  to 
which  he  would  not  submit  in  times  of  peace,  so  in  face 
of  the  bitter  political  warfare  which  the  American  system 
of  government  would  seem  to  promote,  the  party  members 
will  submit  to  action  on  the  part  of  party  leaders  which  in 
a  more  tranquil  condition  of  things  they  would  not  hesitate  to 
resent. 

The  American  political  system  as  at  present  existing  does 
not  thus  satisfy  the  demands  of  popular  government,  as  they 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  1 1 

have  been  defined,  in  as  full  a  measure  as  is  desirable.  It  does 
not  in  the  first  place  permit  the  easy  retirement,  from  the  con- 
trol of  public  affairs,  of  a  party  which  has  lost  the  confidence  of 
the  people.  It  does  not  in  the  second  place  give  the  party  mem- 
bers, in  case  they  disapprove  of  policies  proposed  by  party  leaders, 
the  power  to  bring  about  as  easily  as  is  desirable  a  change  in 
party  leadership. 

If  it  be  said  that  the  electorate  makes  our  governmental  sys- 
tem popular,  it  may  be  answered  that  the  power  the  people  prac- 
tically have  at  an  election  is  merely  to  choose  between  several 
candidates,  none  of  whom  they  may  desire,  and  who,  if  elected, 
do  not  have  the  power  always  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  popu- 
lar policy.  What  the  people  should  have,  if  the  government  is 
to  be  really  popular  in  character,  is  the  power  at  a  given  time  to 
force  an  unpopular  party  out  of  the  control  of  the  government, 
and  to  oblige  the  party  leaders  in  whom  they  do  not  have  confi- 
dence to  lay  down  their  rights  of  leadership,  giving  place  to 
others  more  in  accord  with  the  public  will.  Until  such  a  condi- 
tion of  things  is  reached,  either  within  the  government  or  the 
party,  no  government  can  be  regarded  as  popular. 

That  the  English  method  of  securing  such  a  result,  so  far  as 
may  be,  in  the  governmental  organization,  has  great  advantages, 
is  not  to  be  denied,  although  it  may,  of  course,  be  doubted 
whether  such  a  method  would  be  applicable  in  this  country.  It 
may  be  that  we  shall  have  to  get  the  same  thing  outside  of  our 
governmental  system,  and  in  our  parties.  The  discontent  with 
party  management  and  the  recent  growth  of  the  independent 
voting  class  would  indicate  that  the  people  are  gradually  be- 
coming aware  that  our  real  political  system  is  not  what  an  ex- 
amination of  our  governmental  system  would  at  first  lead  an 
observer  of  it  to  think  it  is.  The  growing  interest  in  methods  of 
primary  reform  indicates,  further,  that  the  conviction  is  gaining 
ground  that  the  point  of  attack  by  those  who  believe  in  the  pres- 
ervation of  popular  government  is  not  so  much  the  formal 
governmental  system  as  the  party  organization. 


12  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

2.      THE    CONDITIONS    OF    PARTY    GOVERNMENT    IN    THE    UNITED 

STATES  l 

The  development  of  parties  in  England  has  made  them 
directly  responsible  for  all  important  acts  of  the  government. 
In  the  United  States  the  form  of  our  Constitution  has  made  that 
responsibility  less  direct. 

The  political  party  is  a  voluntary  association  which  seeks  to 
enlist  a  majority  of  voters  under  its  banner  and  thereby  gain 
control  of  the  government.  As  the  means  employed  by  the  ma- 
jority to  make  its  will  effective,  it  is  irreconcilably  opposed  to  all 
restraints  upon  its  authority.  Party  government  in  this  sense 
is  the  outcome  of  the  efforts  of  the  masses  to  establish  their  com- 
plete and  untrammeled  control  of  the  state. 

This  is  the  reason  why  conservative  statesmen  of  the  eight- 
eenth century  regarded  the  tendency  towards  party  govern- 
ment as  the  greatest  political  evil  of  the  time.  Far-sighted  men 
saw  clearly  that  its  purpose  was  revolutionary;  that  if  accom- 
plished, monarchy  and  aristocracy  would  be  shorn  of  all  power ; 
that  the  checks  upon  the  masses  would  be  swept  away  and  the 
popular  element  made  supreme.  This  would  lead  inevitably 
to  the  overthrow  of  the  entire  system  of  special  privilege  which 
centuries  of  class  rule  had  carefully  built  up  and  protected. 

When  our  Constitution  was  framed  responsible  party  gov- 
ernment had  not  been  established  in  England.  In  theory  the 
Constitution  of  Great  Britain  recognized  three  coordinate 
powers,  the  King,  the  Lords,  and  the  Commons.  But  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  the  government  of  England  was  predominantly  aristo- 
cratic. The  landed  interests  exerted  a  controlling  influence 
even  in  the  House  of  Commons.  The  rapidly  growing  impor- 
tance of  capital  had  not  yet  seriously  impaired  the  constitutional 
authority  of  the  landlord  class.  Land  had  been  until  recently 
the  only  important  form  of  wealth ;  and  the  right  to  a  voice  in 

1  Smith,  J.  A.,  The  Spirit  of  the  American  Government.  Macmillan,  New 
York,  1907. 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  13 

the  management  of  the  government  was  still  an  incident  of  land 
ownership.  Men  as  such  were  not  entitled  to  representation. 
The  property-owning  classes  made  the  laws  and  administered 
them,  officered  the  army  and  navy,  and  controlled  the  policy  of 
the  government  in  every  direction.  .  . 

The  framers  of  our  Constitution,  as  shown  in  previous  chap- 
ters, took  the  English  government  for  their  model  and  sought  to 
establish  the  supremacy  of  the  well-to-do  classes.  Like  the 
English  conservatives  of  that  time  they  deplored  the  existence  of 
political  parties  and  consequently  made  no  provision  for  them 
in  the  system  which  they  established.  Indeed,  their  chief  pur- 
pose was  to  prevent  the  very  thing  which  the  responsible  politi- 
cal party  aimed  to  establish,  viz.,  majority  rule. 

The  very  existence  of  political  parties  would  endanger  the 
system  which  they  set  up,  since  in  their  efforts  to  strengthen 
and  perpetuate  their  rule  they  would  inevitably  advocate  ex- 
tensions of  the  suffrage,  and  thus  in  the  end  competition  between 
parties  for  popular  support  would  be  destructive  of  all  those 
property  qualifications  for  voting  and  holding  office  which  had 
up  to  that  time  excluded  the  propertyless  classes  from  any  par- 
ticipation in  public  affairs.  Hence  Washington  though  a  staunch 
Federalist  himself  saw  nothing  inconsistent  in  trying  to  blend 
the  extremes  of  political  opinion  by  giving  both  Hamilton  and 
Jefferson  a  place  in  his  Cabinet. 

In  England  the  party  by  the  Reform  bill  of  1832  accomplished 
its  purpose,  broke  through  the  barriers  erected  against  it, 
divested  the  Crown  of  all  real  authority,  subordinated  the  House 
of  Lords,  and  established  the  undisputed  rule  of  the  majority  in 
the  House  of  Commons.  This  accomplished,  it  was  inevitable 
that  the  rivalry  between  political  parties  should  result  in  ex- 
tensions of  the  suffrage  until  the  House  should  come  to  represent, 
as  it  does  in  practice  to-day,  the  sentiment  of  the  English  people. 

The  framers  of  the  American  Constitution,  however,  succeeded 
in  erecting  barriers  which  democracy  has  found  it  more  difficult 
to  overcome.  For  more  than  a  century  the  constitutional  bul- 


14  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

warks  which  they  raised  against  the  rule  of  the  numerical  ma- 
jority have  obstructed  and  retarded  the  progress  of  the  demo- 
cratic movement.  The  force  of  public  sentiment  soon  compelled, 
it  is  true,  the  adoption  of  the  Twelfth  Amendment,  which  in 
effect  recognized  the  existence  of  political  parties  and  made 
provision  for  the  party  candidate  for  President  and  Vice-Presi- 
dent.  At  most,  however,  it  merely  allowed  the  party  to  name 
the  executive  without  giving  it  any  effective  control  over  him 
after  he  was  elected,  since  in  other  respects  the  general  plan  of 
p._the  Constitution  remained  unchanged. 

The  political  party,  it  is  true,  has  come  to  play  an  impor- 
tant role  under  our  constitutional  system ;  but  its  power  and  in- 
fluence are  of  a  negative  rather  than  a  positive  character.  It 
professes,  of  course,  to  stand  for  the  principle  of  majority  rule, 
but  in  practice  it  has  become  an  additional  and  one  of  the  most 
patent  checks  on  the  majority. 

To  understand  the  peculiar  features  of  the  American  party 
system  one  must  bear  in  mind  the  constitutional  arrangements 
under  which  it  has  developed.  The  party  is  simply  a  voluntary 
political  association  through  which  the  people  seek  to  formulate 
the  policy  of  the  government,  select  the  officials  who  are  to  carry 
it  out  in  the  actual  administration  of  public  affairs,  and  hold 
them  to  strict  accountability  for  so  doing.  Under  any  govern- 
ment which  makes  full  provision  for  the  political  party,  as  in  the 
English  system  of  to-day,  the  party  has  not  only  the  power  to 
elect  but  the  power  to  remove  those  who  are  entrusted  with  the 
execution  of  its  policies.  Having  this  complete  control  of  the 
government,  it  cannot  escape  responsibility  for  failure  to  carry 
out  the  promises  by  which  it  secured  a  majority  at  the  polls. 
This  is  the  essential  difference  between  the  English  system  on 
the  one  hand  and  the  party  under  the  American  constitutional 
system  on  the  other.  The  one  well  knows  that  if  it  carries  the 
election  it  will  be  expected  to  make  its  promises  good.  The 
other  makes  certain  promises  with  the  knowledge  that  after  the 
election  is  over  it  will  probably  have  no  power  to  carry  them  out. 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  15 

t  is  this  lack  of  power  to  shape  the  entire  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment which,  more  than  anything  else,  has  given  form  and 
character  to  the  party  system  of  the  United  States.  To  the 
extent  that  the  Constitution  has  deprived  the  majority  of  the 
power  to  mold  the  polic^  of  the  government  through  voluntary 
political  associations,  it  has  defeated  the  main  purpose  for  which 
the  party  should  exist. 

The  fact  that  under  the  American  form  of  government  the 
party  cannot  be  held  accountable  for  failure  to  carry  out  its 
ante-election  pledges  has  had  the  natural  and  inevitable  re- 
sult. When,  as  in  England,  the  party  which  carries  the  election 
obtains  complete  and  undisputed  control  of  the  government, 
the  sense  of  responsibility  is  ever  present  in  those  who  direct  it. 
If  in  the  event  of  its  success  it  is  certain  to  be  called  upon  to 
carry  out  its  promises,  it  cannot  afford  for  the  sake  of  obtaining 
votes  to  make  promises  which  it  has  no  intention  of  keeping. 
But  when  the  party,  even  though  successful  at  the  polls,  may 
lack  the  power  to  enforce  its  policy,  it  cannot  be  controlled  by  a 
sense  of  direct  responsibility  to  the  people.  Promises  may  be 
recklessly  and  extravagantly  made  merely  for  the  sake  of  get- 
ting votes.  The  party  platform  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
party  managers  ceases  to  be  a  serious  declaration  of  political 
principles.  It  comes  to  be  regarded  as  a  means  of  winning  elec- 
tions rather  than  a  statement  of  what  the  party  is  obligated 
to  accomplish. 

The  influence  thus  exerted  by  the  Constitution  upon  our 
party  system,  though  generally  overlooked  by  students  and 
critics  of  American  politics,  has  had  profound  and  far-reaching 
results.  That  the  conduct  of  individuals  is  determined  largely 
by  the  conditions  under  which  they  live  is  as  well  established  as 
any  axiom  of  political  science.  This  must  be  borne  in  mind  if 
we  would  fully  understand  the  prevailing  apathy  —  the  seeming 
indifference  to  corruption  and  ring  rule  which  has  so  long  char- 
acterized a  large  class  of  intelligent  and  well-meaning  American 
citizens.  To  ascribe  the  evils  of  our  party  system  to  their  lack 


1 6  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

of  interest  in  public  questions  and  their  selfish  disregard  of  civic 
duties,  is  to  ignore  an  important  phase  of  the  problem  —  the 
influence  of  the  system  itself.  In  the  long  run  an  active  general 
interest  can  be  maintained  only  in  those  institutions  from  which 
the  people  derive  some  real  or  fancied  benefit.  This  benefit  in  the 
case  of  the  political  party  can  come  about  only  through  the  con- 
trol which  it  enables  those  who  compose  it  to  exercise  over  the 
government.  And  where,  as  under  the  American  system,  con- 
trol of  the  party  does  not  ensure  control  of  the  government,  the 
chief  motive  for  an  alert  and  unflagging  interest  in  political  ques- 
tions is  lacking.  If  the  majority  cannot  make  an  effective  use 
of  the  party  system  for  the  attainment  of  political  ends,  they 
cannot  be  expected  to  maintain  an  active  interest  in  party 
affairs. 

But  although  our  constitutional  arrangements  are  such  as  to 
deprive  the  people  of  effective  control  over  the  party,  it  has 
officers  at  its  disposal  and  sufficient  power  to  grant  or  revoke 
legislative  favors  to  make  control  of  its  organization  a  matter  of 
supreme  importance  to  office  seekers  and  various  corporate  in- 
terests. Thus  while  the  system  discourages  an  unselfish  and 
public-spirited  interest  in  party  politics,  it  does  appeal  directly 
to  those  interests  which  wish  to  use  the  party  for  purely  selfish 
ends.  Hence  the  ascendency  of  the  professional  politician  who, 
claiming  to  represent  the  masses,  really  owes  his  preferment  to 
those  who  subsidize  the  party  machine. 

The  misrepresentative  character  of  the  American  political 
party  seems  to  be  generally  recognized  by  those  who  have  inves- 
tigated the  subject.  It  is  only  when  we  look  for  an  explana- 
tion of  this  fact  that  there  is  much  difference  of  opinion.  The 
chief  difficulty  encountered  by  those  who  have  given  attention 
to  this  problem  has  been  the  point  of  view  from  which  they  have 
approached  it. 

The  unwarranted  assumption  almost  universally  made  that 
the  principle  of  majority  rule  is  fundamental  in  our  scheme  of 
government  has  been  a  serious  obstacle  to  any  adequate  inves- 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  17 

tigation  of  the  question.  Blind  to  the  most  patent  defects  of 
the  Constitution,  they  have  ignored  entirely  its  influence  upon 
the  development  and  character  of  the  political  party.  Taking 
it  for  granted  that  our  general  scheme  of  government  was  espe- 
cially designed  to  facilitate  the  rule  of  the  majority,  they  have 
found  it  difficult  to  account  for  the  failure  of  the  majority  to 
control  the  party  machine.  Why  is  it  that  under  a  system  which 
recognizes  the  right  and  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  majority  to 
control  the  policy  of  the  government,  that  control  has  in  prac- 
tice passed  into  the  hands  of  a  small  minority  who  exercise  it 
often  in  utter  disregard  of  and  even  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
wishes  and  interests  of  the  majority  ?  On  the  assumption  that 
we  have  a  Constitution  favorable  in  the  highest  degree  to  democ- 
racy, how  are  we  to  explain  the  absence  of  popular  control  over 
the  party  itself?  Ignoring  the  obstacles  which  the  Constitu- 
tion has  placed  in  the  way  of  majority  rule,  American  political 
writers  have  almost  invariably  sought  to  lay  the  blame  for  cor- 
ruption and  machine  methods  upon  the  people.  They  would 
have  us  believe  that  if  such  evils  are  more  pronounced  here  than 
elsewhere  it  is  because  in  this  country  the  masses  control  the 
government. 

If  the  assumption  thus  made  concerning  the  nature  of  our 
political  system  were  true,  we  would  be  forced  to  accept  one  of 
two  conclusions:  either  that  popular  government  inevitably 
results  in  the  despotism  of  a  corrupt  and  selfish  oligarchy,  or  if 
such  is  not  a  necessary  consequence,  then  at  any  rate  the  stan- 
dard of  citizenship  in  this  country  intellectually  and  morally  is 
not  high  enough  to  make  democracy  practicable.  That  the 
ignorance,  selfishness  and  incapacity  of  the  people  are  the  real 
source  of  the  evils  mentioned  is  diligently  inculcated  by  all  those 
who  wish  to  discredit  the  theory  of  popular  government.  No 
one  knows  better  than  the  machine  politician  and  his  allies  in 
the  great  corporate  industries  of  the  country  how  little  control 
the  people  generally  do  or  can  exercise  over  the  party  under  our 
present  political  arrangements.  To  disclose  this  fact  to  the 


1 8  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

people  generally,  however,  might  arouse  a  popular  movement  of 
such  magnitude  as  to  sweep  away  the  constitutional  checks 
which  are  the  source  of  their  power.  But  as  this  is  the  very 
thing  which  they  wish  to  prevent,  the  democratic  character  of 
the  Constitution  must  be  taken  for  granted;  for  by  so  doing 
the  people  are  made  to  assume  the  entire  responsibility  for  the 
evils  which  result  from  the  practical  operation  of  the  system. 
And  since  the  alleged  democratic  character  of  our  political  ar- 
rangements is,  it  is  maintained,  the  real  source  of  the  evils  com- 
plained of,  the  only  effective  remedy  would  be  the  restriction  of 
the  power  of  the  people.  This  might  take  the  form  of  additional 
constitutional  checks  which  would  thereby  diminish  the  influence 
of  a  general  election  upon  the  policy  of  the  government  without 
disturbing  the  present  basis  of  the  suffrage ;  or  it  might  be  ac- 
complished by  excluding  from  the  suffrage  those  classes  deemed 
to  be  least  fit  to  exercise  that  right.  Either  method  would  still 
further  diminish  the  influence  of  the  majority,  and  instead  of 
providing  a  remedy  for  the  evils  of  our  system,  would  only  in- 
tensify them,  since  it  would  augment  the  power  of  the  minority, 
which  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  main  source  from  which  they 
proceed. 

A  government  which  limits  the  power  of  the  majority  might 
promote  the  general  interests  of  society  more  effectually  than 
one  controlled  by  the  majority,  if  the  checks  were  in  the  hands 
of  a  class  of  superior  wisdom  and  virtue.  But  in  practice  such 
a  government,  instead  of  being  better  than  those  for  whom  it 
exists,  is  almost  invariably  worse.  The  complex  and  confus- 
ing system  of  checks,  with  the  consequent  diffusion  of  power 
and  absence  of  direct  and  definite  responsibility,  is  much  bet- 
ter adapted  to  the  purposes  of  a  self-seeking,  corrupt  minority 
than  to  the  ends  of  good  government.  The  evils  of  such  a  sys- 
tem which  are  mainly  those  of  minority  domination  must  be 
carefully  distinguished  from  those  which  result  from  majority 
control.  The  critics  of  American  political  institutions  have  as 
a  rule  ignored  the  former  or  constitutional  aspect  of  our  political 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  19 

evils,  and  have  held  majority  rule  accountable  for  much  that 
our  system  of  checks  has  made  the  majority  powerless  to  pre- 
vent. The  evils  of  our  party  system,  having  their  roots  in  the 
lack  of  popular  control  over  the  party  machine,  are  thus  largely 
a  consequence  of  the  checks  on  the  power  of  the  majority  con- 
tained in  the  Constitution  itself.  In  other  words,  they  are  the 
outcome,  not  of  too  much,  but  of  too  little  democracy. 

The  advocates  of  political  reform  have  directed  their  atten- 
tion mainly  to  the  party  machine.  They  have  assumed  that 
control  of  the  party  organization  by  the  people  would  give  them 
control  of  the  government.  If  this  view  were  correct,  the  evils 
which  exist  could  be  attributed  only  to  the  ignorance,  want  of 
public  spirit  and  lack  of  capacity  for  effective  political  coopera- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  people.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  this 
method  of  dealing  with  the  problem  is  open  to  the  objection  that 
it  mistakes  the  effect  for  the  cause.  It  should  be  clearly  seen 
that  a  system  of  constitutional  checks,  which  hedges  about  the 
power  of  the  majority  on  every  side,  is  incompatible  with  ma- 
jority rule ;  and  that  even  if  the  majority  controlled  the  party 
organization,  it  could  control  the  policy  of  the  government  only 
by  breaking  down  and  sweeping  away  the  barriers  which  the 
Constitution  has  erected  against  it.  It  follows  that  all  attempts 
to  establish  the  majority  in  power  by  merely  reforming  the  party 
must  be  futile. 

Under  any  political  system  which  recognizes  the  right  of  the 
majority  to  rule,  responsibility  of  the  government  to  the  people 
is  the  end  and  aim  of  all  that  the  party  stands  for.  Party  plat- 
forms and  popular  elections  are  not  ends  in  themselves,  but  only 
means  by  which  the  people  seek  to  make  the  government  re- 
sponsive to  public  opinion.  Any  arrangement  of  constitutional 
checks,  then,  which  defeats  popular  control,  strikes  down  what 
is  most  vital  and  fundamental  in  party  government.  And  since 
the  party  under  our  system  cannot  enforce  public  opinion,  it  is 
but  natural  that  the  people  should  lose  interest  in  party  affairs. 
This  furnishes  an  explanation  of  much  that  is  peculiar  to  the 


2O  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

American  party  system.  It  accounts  for  that  seeming  indif- 
ference and  inactivity  on  the  part  of  the  people  generally,  which 
have  allowed  a  small  selfish  minority  to  seize  the  party  machinery 
and  use  it  for  private  ends.  .  . 


3.     THE  NECESSITY  OF  STRONG  PARTIES  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  l 

The  federal  nature  of  our  government  makes  party  control 
difficult.  The  dispersion  of  authority,  however,  increases  the 
number  of  office  holders  who  can  be  mustered  to  the  support  of 
a  party.  A  strong  organization  must  be  formed  to  enable  the 
party  manager  to  control  the  extensive  machinery  by  which 
voters  and  men  in  office  can  be  kept  loyal  to  the  party. 

(Government)  can  be  solidified  and  drawn  to  system  only 
by  the  external  authority  of  party,  an  organization  outside  the 
government  and  independent  of  it.  Not  being  drawn  together 
by  any  system  provided  in  our  constitutions,  being  laid  apart, 
on  the  contrary,  in  a  sort  of  jealous  dispersion  and  analysis  by 
Whig  theory  enacted,  into  law,  it  has  been  necessary  to  keep  the 
several  parts  of  the  government  in  some  kind  of  workable  com- 
bination by  outside  pressure,  by  the  closely  knit  imperative  dis- 
cipline of  party,  a  body  that  has  no  constitutional  cleavages  and 
is  free  to  tie  itself  into  legislative  and  executive  functions  alike 
by  its  systematic  control  of  the  personnel  of  all  branches  of  the 
government. 

Fortunately,  the  federal  executive  is  not  dispersed  into  its 
many  elements  as  the  executive  of  each  of  our  States  is.  The 
dispersion  of  our  state  executive  runs  from  top  to  bottom.  The 
governor  has  no  cabinet.  The  executive  officers  of  state  as- 
sociated with  him  in  administration  are  elected  as  he  is.  Each 
refers  his  authority  to  particular  statutes  or  particular  clauses  of 
the  state  constitution.  Each  is  responsible  politically  to  his 

1  Wilson,  W.,  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States.  Columbia 
University  Press,  New  York,  1908;  pp.  204-213. 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  21 

constituents,  the  voters  of  the  State,  and,  legally,  to  the  courts 
and  their  juries.  But  in  the  federal  government  the  executive 
is  at  least  in  itself  a  unit.  Every  one  subordinate  to  the  Presi- 
dent is  appointed  by  him  and  responsible  to  him,  both  legally 
and  politically.  He  can  control  the  personnel  and  the  action  of 
the  whole  of  the  great  "department"  of  government  of  which  he 
is  the  head.  The  Whig  doctrine  is  insisted  on  only  with  regard 
to  dealings  of  the  legislature  or  the  executive  with  the  courts. 
The  three  great  functions  of  government  are  not  to  be  merged 
or  even  drawn  into  organic  cooperation,  but  are  to  be  balanced 
against  one  another  in  a  safe  counterpoise.  They  are  inter- 
dependent but  organically  disassociated;  must  cooperate,  and 
yet  are  subject  to  no  common  authority. 

The  way  in  which  the  several  branches  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment have  been  separately  organized  and  given  efficiency  in  the 
discharge  of  their  own  functions  has  only  emphasized  their 
separation  and  jealous  independence.  The  effective  organiza- 
tion of  the  House  under  its  committees  and  its  powerful  speaker, 
the  organization  of  the  Senate  under  its  steering  committees, 
the  consolidation  of  the  executive  under  the  authority  of  the 
President,  only  render  it  the  more  feasible  and  the  more  likely 
that  these  several  parts  of  the  government  will  act  with  an  all 
too  effective  consciousness  of  their  distinct  individuality  and 
dignity,  their  distinct  claim  to  be  separately  considered  and 
severally  obeyed  in  the  shaping  and  conduct  of  affairs.  They 
are  not  to  be  driven,  and  there  is  no  machinery  of  which  the 
Constitution  knows  anything  by  which  they  can  be  led  and 
combined. 

It  is  for  that  reason  that  we  have  had  such  an  extraordinary 
development  of  party  authority  in  the  United  States  and  have 
developed  outside  the  government  itself  so  elaborate  and  effec- 
tive an  organization  of  parties.  They  are  absolutely  necessary 
to  hold  things  thus  disconnected  and  dispersed  together  and 
give  some  coherence  to  the  action  of  political  forces.  There 
are,  as  I  have  already  explained  in  another  connection,  so  many 


22  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

officers  to  be  elected  that  even  the  preparation  of  lists  of  candi- 
dates is  too  complicated  and  laborious  a  business  to  be  under- 
taken by  men  busy  about  other  things.  Some  one  must  make 
a  profession  of  attending  to  it,  must  give  it  system  and  method. 
A  few  candidates  for  a  few  conspicuous  offices  which  interested 
everybody,  the  voters  themselves  might  select  in  the  intervals 
of  private  business;  but  a  multitude  of  candidates  for  offices 
great  and  small  they  cannot  choose ;  and  after  they  are  chosen 
and  elected  to  office  they  are  still  a  multitude,  and  there  must 
be  somebody  to  look  after  them  in  the  discharge  of  their  func- 
tions, somebody  to  observe  them  closely  in  action,  in  order  that 
they  may  be  assessed  against  the  time  when  they  are  to  be 
judged.  Each  has  his  own  little  legal  domain ;  there  is  no  inter- 
dependence amongst  them,  no  interior  organization  to  hold  them 
together.  There  must,  therefore,  be  an  exterior  organization, 
voluntarily  formed  and  independent  of  the  law,  whose  object 
it  shall  be  to  bind  them  together  in  some  sort  of  harmony  and 
cooperation.  That  exterior  organization  is  the  political  party. 
The  hierarchy  of  its  officers  must  supply  the  place  of  a  hierarchy 
of  legally  constituted  officials. 

Nowhere  else  is  the  mere  maintenance  of  the  machinery  of 
government  so  complex  and  difficult  a  matter  as  in  the  United 
States.  It  is  not  as  if  there  were  but  a  single  government  to  be 
maintained  and  officered.  There  are  the  innumerable  offices  of 
States,  of  counties,  of  townships,  of  cities,  to  be  filled ;  and  it  is 
only  by  elections,  by  the  filling  of  offices,  that  parties  test  and 
maintain  their  hold  upon  public  opinion.  Their  control  of  the 
opinion  of  the  nation  inevitably  depends  upon  their  hold  on  the 
many  localities  of  which  it  is  made  up.  If  they  lose  their  grip 
upon  the  petty  choices  which  affect  the  daily  life  of  counties 
and  cities  and  states,  they  will  inevitably  lose  their  grip  upon 
the  greater  matters,  also,  of  which  the  action  of  the  nation  is 
made  up.  Parties  get  their  coherence  and  prestige,  their  root- 
age and  solidity,  their  mastery  over  men  and  events,  from  their 
command  of  detail,  their  control  of  the  little- tides  that  eventually 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  23 

flood  the  great  channels  of  national  action.  No  one  realizes 
more  completely  the  interdependence  of  municipal,  state,  and 
federal  elections  than  do  the  party  managers.  Their  parties 
cannot  be  one  thing  for  the  one  set  of  elections  and  another  for 
the  other;  and  the  complexity  of  the  politician's  task  consists 
in  the  fact  that,  though  from  his  point  of  view  interdependent 
and  intimately  connected,  the  constantly  recurring  elections  of 
a  system  under  which  everybody  is  elected  are  variously  scat- 
tered in  time  and  place  and  object. 

We  have  made  many  efforts  to  separate  local  and  national 
elections  in  time  in  order  to  separate  them  in  spirit.  Many 
local  questions  upon  which  the  voters  of  particular  cities  or 
counties  or  States  are  called  upon  to  vote  have  no  connection 
whatever  either  in  principle  or  in  object  with  the  national  ques- 
tions upon  which  the  choice  of  congressmen  and  of  presidential 
electors  should  turn.  It  is  ideally  desirable  that  the  voter 
should  be  left  free  to  choose  the  candidates  of  one  party  in  lo- 
cal elections  and  the  candidates  of  the  opposite  party  in  national 
elections.  It  is  undoubtedly  desirable  that  he  should  go  further 
and  separate  matters  of  local  administration  from  his  choice  of 
party  altogether,  choosing  his  local  representatives  upon  their 
merits  as  men  without  regard  to  their  party  affiliations.  We 
have  hopefully  made  a  score  of  efforts  to  obtain  "non-partisan" 
local  political  action.  But  such  efforts  always  in  the  long  run 
fail.  Local  parties  cannot  be  one  thing  for  one  purpose  and 
another  for  another  without  losing  form  and  discipline  alto- 
gether and  becoming  hopelessly  fluid.  Neither  can  parties  form 
and  re-form,  now  for  this  purpose  and  again  for  that,  or  be  for 
one  election  one  thing  and  for  another  another.  Unless  they 
can  have  local  training  and  constant  rehearsal  of  their  parts, 
they  will  fail  of  coherent  organization  when  they  address  them- 
selves to  the  business  of  national  elections.  For  national  pur- 
poses they  must  regard  themselves  as  parts  of  greater  wholes, 
and  it  is  impossible  under  such  a  system  as  our  own  that  they 
should  maintain  their  zest  and  interest  in  their  business  if  their 


24  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

only  objects  are  distant  and  general  objects,  without  local  root- 
age or  illustration,  centering  in  Congress  and  utterly  discon- 
nected with  anything  that  they  themselves  handle.  Local  offices 
are  indispensable  to  party  discipline  as  rewards  of  local  fidelity, 
as  the  visible  and  tangible  objects  of  those  who  devote  their 
time  and  energy  to  party  organization  and  undertake  to  see  to 
it  that  the  full  strength  of  the  party  vote  is  put  forth  when  the 
several  local  sections  of  the  party  are  called  upon  to  unite  for 
national  purposes.  If  national  politics  are  not  to  become  a  mere 
game  of  haphazard  amidst  which  parties  can  make  no  calcula- 
tions whatever,  systematic  and  disciplined  connections  between 
local  and  national  affairs  are  imperative,  and  some  instrument 
must  be  found  to  effect  them.  Whatever  their  faults  and  abuses, 
party  machines  are  absolutely  necessary  under  our  existing  elec- 
toral arrangements,  and  are  necessary  chiefly  for  keeping  the 
several  segments  of  parties  together.  No  party  manager  could 
piece  local  majorities  together  and  make  up  a  national  majority, 
if  local  majorities  were  mustered  upon  non-partisan  grounds. 
No  party  manager  can  keep  his  lieutenants  to  their  business  who 
has  not  control  of  local  nominations.  His  lieutenants  do  not 
expect  national  rewards:  their  vital  rootage  is  the  rootage  of 
local  opportunity. 

Just  because,  therefore,  there  is  nowhere  else  in  the  world  so 
complex  and  various  an  electoral  machinery  as  in  the  United 
States,  nowhere  else  in  the  world  is  party  machinery  so  elabor- 
ate or  so  necessary.  It  is  important  to  keep  this  in  mind. 
Otherwise,  when  we  analyze  party  action,  we  shall  fall  into  the 
too  common  error  of  thinking  that  we  are  analyzing  disease. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  whole  thing  is  just  as  normal  and  natural 
as  any  other  political  development.  The  part  that  party  has 
played  in  this  country  has  been  both  necessary  and  bene- 
ficial, and  if  bosses  and  secret  managers  are  often  undesirable 
persons,  playing  their  parts  for  their  own  benefit  or  glorification 
rather  than  for  the  public  good,  they  are  at  least  the  natural 
fruits  of  the  tree.  It  has  borne  fruit  good  and  bad,  sweet 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  25 

and  bitter,  wholesome  and  corrupt,  but  it  is  native  to  our  air 
and  practice  and  can  be  up-rooted  only  by  an  entire  change  of 
system. 

All  the  peculiarities  of  party  government  in  the  United  States 
are  due  to  the  too  literal  application  of  Whig  doctrine,  to  the  in- 
finite multiplication  of  elective  offices.  There  are  two  things 
to  be  done  for  which  we  have  supplied  no  adequate  legal  or  con- 
stitutional machinery :  there  are  thousands  of  officials  to  be 
chosen  and  there  are  many  disconnected  parts  of  government  to 
be  brought  into  cooperation.  "It  may  be  laid  down  as  a  politi- 
cal maxim  that  whatever  assigns  to  the  people  a  power  which 
they  are  naturally  incapable  of  wielding  takes  it  away  from 
them."  They  have,  under  our  Constitution  and  statutes,  been 
assigned  the  power  of  filling  innumerable  elective  offices ;  they 
are  incapable  of  wielding  that  power  because  they  have  neither 
the  time  nor  the  necessary  means  of  cooperative  action;  the 
power  has  therefore  been  taken  away  from  them,  not  by  law  but 
by  circumstances,  and  handed  over  to  those  who  have  the  time 
and  the  inclination  to  supply  the  necessary  organization;  and 
the  system  of  election  has  been  transformed  into  a  system  of 
practically  irresponsible  appointment  to  office  by  private  party 
managers,  —  irresponsible  because  our  law  has  not  yet  been 
able  to  devise  any  means  of  making  it  responsible.  It  may  also 
be  laid  down  as  a  political  maxim  that  when  the  several  chief 
organs  of  government  are  separated  by  organic  law  and  offset 
against  each  other  in  jealous  seclusion,  no  common  legal  author- 
ity set  over  them,  no  necessary  community  of  interest  subsisting 
amongst  them,  no  common  origin  or  purpose  dominating  them, 
they  must  of  necessity,  if  united  at  all,  be  united  by  pressure 
from  without;  and  they  must  be  united  if  government  is  to 
proceed.  They  cannot  remain  checked  and  balanced  against 
one  another ;  they  must  act,  and  act  together.  They  must,  there- 
fore, of  their  own  will  or  of  mere  necessity  obey  an  outside 
master. 

Both  sets  of  dispersions,  the  dispersion  of  offices  and  the 


26  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

dispersion  of  functions  and  authorities,  have  cooperated  to 
produce  our  parties,  and  their  organization.  Through  their 
caucuses,  their  county  conventions,  their  state  conven- 
tions, their  national  conventions,  instead  of  through  legis- 
latures and  cabinets,  they  supply  the  indispensable  means 
of  agreement  and  cooperation,  and  direct  the  government  of 
the  country  both  in  its  policy  and  in  its  personnel.  Their  local 
managers  make  up  the  long  and  variegated  lists  of  candidates 
made  necessary  under  our  would-be  democratic  practice ;  their 
caucuses  and  local  conventions  ratify  the  choice ;  their  state 
and  national  conventions  add  declarations  of  principle  and  deter- 
mine party  policy.  Only  in  the  United  States  is  party  thus  a 
distinct  authority  outside  the  formal  government,  expressing  its 
purposes  through  its  own  separate  and  peculiar  organs  and  per- 
mitted to  dictate  what  Congress  shall  undertake  and  the  na- 
tional administration  address  itself  to.  Under  every  other 
system  of  government  which  is  representative  in  character  and 
which  attempts  to  adjust  the  action  of  government  to  the  wishes 
and  interests  of  the  people,  the  organization  of  parties  is,  in  a 
sense,  indistinguishable  from  the  organs  of  the  government 
itself.  Party  finds  its  organic  lodgment  in  the  national  legislature 
and  executive  themselves.  The  several  active  parts  of  the  gov- 
ernment are  closely  united  in  organization  for  a  common  pur- 
pose, because  they  are  under  a  common  direction  and  them- 
selves constitute  the  machinery  of  party  control.  Parties  do 
not  have  to  supply  themselves  with  separate  organs  of  their  own 
outside  the  government  and  intended  to  dictate  its  policy,  be- 
cause such  separate  organs  are  unnecessary.  The  responsible 
organs  of  government  are  also  the  avowed  organs  of  party. 
The  action  of  opinion  upon  them  is  open  and  direct,  not 
circuitous  and  secret. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  as  a  consequence  the  dis- 
tinction we  make  between  " politicians"  and  " statesmen"  is 
peculiarly  our  own.  In  other  countries  where  these  words  or 
their  equivalents  are  used,  the  statesman  differs  from  the  poli- 


Party  Control  of  the  Government  27 

tician  only  in  capacity  and  in  degree,  and  is  distinguished  as  a 
public  leader  only  in  being  a  greater  figure  on  the  same  stage, 
whereas  with  us  politicians  and  statesmen  differ  in  kind.  A 
politician  is  a  man  who  manages  the  organs  of  the  party  outside 
the  open  field  of  government,  outside  executive  offices  and  legis- 
lative chambers,  and  who  conveys  the  behests  of  party  to  those 
who  hold  the  offices  and  make  laws ;  while  a  statesman  is  the  leader 
of  public  opinion,  the  immediate  director  (under  the  politicians) 
of  executive  or  legislative  policy,  the  diplomat,  the  recognized 
public  servant.  The  politician,  indeed,  often  holds  public  office 
and  attempts  the  role  of  statesman  as  well,  but,  though  the  roles 
may  be  combined,  they  are  none  the  less  sharply  distinguishable. 
Party  majorities  which  are  actually  in  control  of  the  whole  legis- 
lative machinery,  as  party  majorities  in  England  are,  determine 
party  programs  by  the  use  of  the  government  itself,  —  their 
leaders  are  at  once  "politicians"  and  " statesmen ";  and,  the 
function  being  public,  the  politician  is  more  likely  to  be  swal- 
lowed up  in  the  statesman.  But  with  us,  who  affect  never  to 
allow  party  majorities  to  get  in  complete  control  of  governmental 
machinery  if  we  can  prevent  it  by  constitutional  obstacles, 
party  programs  are  made  up  outside  legislative  chambers,  by 
conventions  constituted  under  the  direction  of  independent 
politicians,  —  politicians,  I  mean,  who  are,  at  any  rate  in  respect 
of  that  function,  independent  of  the  responsibilities  of  office  and 
of  public  action;  and  these  independent  conventions,  not 
charged  with  the  responsibility  of  carrying  out  their  programs, 
actually  outline  the  policy  of  administrations  and  dictate  the 
action  of  Congress,  the  irresponsible  dictating  to  the  responsible, 
and  so,  it  may  be,  destroying  the  very  responsibility  itself. 
"The  peculiarities  of  American  party  government  are  all  due  to 
this  separation  of  party  management  from  direct  and  immediate 
responsibility  for  the  administration  of  the  government." 


28  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

II.    THE    DEVELOPMENT  OF  PARTY  ORGANIZATION  IN  THE 
UNITED    STATES 

I.    (a)  THE  EARLY  FEAR  OF  PARTY  INFLUENCE1 

The  makers  of  the  Constitution  looked  upon  political 
parties  as  pernicious.  They  sought  to  frame  a  government 
which  would  disregard  them  and  base  the  elections  on  ability 
without  any  reference  to  "factional"  divisions. 

AMONG  the  numerous  advantages  promised  by  a  well  con- 
structed union,  none  deserves  to  be  more  accurately  developed 
than  its  tendency  to  break  and  control  the  violence  of  faction. 
The  friend  of  popular  governments,  never  finds  himself  so  much 
alarmed  for  their  character  and  fate,  as  when  he  contemplates 
their  propensity  to  this  dangerous  vice.  He  will  not  fail,  there- 
fore, to  set  a  due  value  on  any  plan  which,  without  violating 
the  principles  to  which  he  is  attached,  provides  a  proper  cure 
for  it.  The  instability,  injustice  and  confusion,  introduced  into 
the  public  councils,  have  in  truth,  been  the  mortal  diseases  under 
which  popular  governments  have  everywhere  perished ;  as  they 
continue  to  be  the  favorite  and  fruitful  topics  from  which  the 
adversaries  to  liberty  derive  their  most  specious  declamations. 
The  valuable  improvements  made  by  the  American  constitutions 
on  the  popular  models,  both  ancient  and  modern,  cannot  cer- 
tainly be  too  much  admired ;  but  it  would  be  an  unwarrantable 
partiality,  to  contend  that  they  have  as  effectually  obviated 
the  danger  on  this  side,  as  was  wished  and  expected.  Com- 
plaints are  everywhere  heard  from  our  most  considerate  and 
virtuous  citizens,  equally  the  friends  of  public  and  private  faith, 
and  of  public  and  personal  liberty,  that  our  governments  are 
too  unstable;  that  the  public  good  is  disregarded  in  the 
conflicts  of  rival  parties ;  and  that  measures  are  too  often  de- 
cided, not  according  to  the  rules  of  justice,  and  the  rights  of  the 
minor  party,  but  by  the  superior  force  of  an  interested  and  over- 
bearing majority.  .  . 

1  Madison,  J.,  in  the  Federalist,  No.  X,  1787. 


Development  of  Party  Organization  29 

By  a  faction,  I  understand  a  number  of  citizens,  whether 
amounting  to  a  majority  or  minority  of  the  whole,  who  are 
united  and  actuated  by  some  common  impulse  of  passion,  or  of 
interest,  adverse  to  the  rights  of  other  citizens,  or  to  the  per- 
manent and  aggregate  interests  of  the  community. 

There  are  two  methods  of  curing  the  mischiefs  of  faction: 
The  one,  by  removing  its  causes;  the  other,  by  controlling  its 
effects. 

There  are  again  two  methods  of  removing  the  causes  of  fac- 
tion: The  one,  by  destroying  the  liberty  which  is  essential  to 
its  existence;  the  other,  by  giving  to  every  citizen  the  same 
opinions,  the  same  passions,  and  the  same  interests. 

It  could  never  be  more  truly  said,  than  of  the  first  remedy, 
that  it  was  worse  than  the  disease.  Liberty  is  to  faction,  what 
air  is  to  fire,  an  aliment  without  which  it  instantly  expires.  But 
it  could  not  be  a  less  folly  to  abolish  liberty,  which  is  essential 
to  political  life,  because  it  nourishes  faction,  than  it  would  be 
to  wish  the  annihilation  of  air,  which  is  essential  to  animal  life, 
because  it  imparts  to  fire  its  destructive  agency. 

The  second  expedient  is  as  impracticable,  as  the  first  would 
be  unwise.  As  long  as  the  reason  of  man  continues  fallible, 
and  he  is  at  liberty  to  exercise  it,  different  opinions  will  be 
formed.  .  . 

The  latent  causes  of  faction  are  thus  sown  in  the  nature  of 
man;  and  we  see  them  everywhere  brought  into  different  de- 
grees of  activity,  according  to  the  different  circumstances  of 
civil  society.  A  zeal  for  different  opinions  concerning  religion, 
concerning  government,  and  many  other  points,  as  well  of  specu- 
lation as  of  practice;  an  attachment  to  different  leaders,  am- 
bitiously contending  for  preeminence  and  power ;  or  to  persons 
of  other  descriptions,  whose  fortunes  have  been  interesting  to 
the  human  passions,  have,  in  turn,  divided  mankind  into  parties, 
inflamed  them  with  mutual  animosity,  and  rendered  them  much 
more  disposed  to  vex  and  oppress  each  other,  than  to  cooperate 
for  their  common  good.  So  strong  is  this  propensity  of  mankind, 


30  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

to  fall  into  mutual  animosities,  that  where  no  substantial  oc- 
casion presents  itself,  the  most  frivolous  and  fanciful  distinc- 
tions have  been  sufficient  to  kindle  their  unfriendly  passions, 
and  excite  their  most  violent  conflicts.  But  the  most  common 
and  durable  source  of  factions,  has  been  the  various  and  unequal 
distribution  of  property.  Those  who  hold,  and  those  who  are 
without  property,  have  ever  formed  distinct  interests  in  society. 
Those  who  are  creditors,  and  those  who  are  debtors,  fall  under  a 
like  discrimination.  A  landed  interest,  a  manufacturing  in- 
terest, a  mercantile  interest,  a  moneyed  interest,  with  many 
lesser  interests,  grow  up  of  necessity  in  civilized  nations  and 
divide  them  into  different  classes,  actuated  by  different  senti- 
ments and  views.  The  regulation  of  these  various  and  interfer- 
ing interests  forms  the  principal  task  of  modern  legislation,  and 
involves  the  spirit  of  party  and  faction  in  the  necessary  and  ordi- 
nary operations  of  the  government. 

No  man  is  allowed  to  be  a  judge  in  his  own  cause;  because 
his  interest  will  certainly  bias  his  judgment,  and,  not  improbably, 
corrupt  his  integrity.  With  equal,  nay  with  greater  reason,  a 
body  of  men  are  unfit  to  be  both  judges  and  parties  at  the  same 
time ;  yet  what  are  many  of  the  most  important  acts  of  legis- 
lation but  so  many  judicial  determinations,  not  indeed  con- 
cerning the  rights  of  single  persons,  but  concerning  the  rights  of 
large  bodies  of  citizens?  and  what  are  the  different  classes  of 
legislators,  but  advocates  and  parties  to  the  causes  which  they 
determine?  Is  a  law  proposed  concerning  private  debts?  It 
is  a  question  to  which  the  creditors  are  parties  on  one  side,  and 
the  debtors  on  the  other.  Justice  ought  to  hold  the  balance  be- 
tween them.  Yet  the  parties  are,  and  must  be,  themselves  the 
judges;  and  the  most  numerous  party,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
most  powerful  faction  must  be  expected  to  prevail.  Shall 
domestic  manufactures  be  encouraged,  and  in  what  degree  by 
restrictions  on  foreign  manufactures  ?  are  questions  which  would 
be  differently  decided  by  the  landed  and  the  manufacturing 
classes;  and  probably  by  neither  with  a  sole  regard  to  justice 


Development  of  Party  Organization  3 1 

and  the  public  good.  The  apportionment  of  taxes  on  the  vari- 
ous descriptions  of  property,  is  an  act  which  seems  to  require 
the  most  exact  impartiality ;  yet  there  is,  perhaps,  no  legislative 
act  in  which  greater  opportunity  and  temptation  are  given  to  a 
predominant  party,  to  trample  on  the  rules  of  justice.  Every 
shilling,  with  which  they  overburden  the  inferior  number,  is  a 
shilling  saved  to  their  own  pockets. 

It  is  in  vain  to  say,  that  enlightened  statesmen  will  be  able  to 
adjust  these  clashing  interests,  and  render  them  all  subservient 
to  the  public  good.  Enlightened  statesmen  will  not  always  be 
at  the  helm :  nor  in  many  cases,  can  such  an  adjustment  be 
made  at  all,  without  taking  into  view  indirect  and  remote  con- 
siderations, which  will  rarely  prevail  over  the  immediate  in- 
terest which  one  party  may  find  in  disregarding  the  rights  of 
another,  or  the  good  of  the  whole. 

The  inference  to  which  we  are  brought  is,  that  the  causes  of 
faction  cannot  be  removed ;  and  that  relief  is  only  to  be  sought 
in  the  means  of  controlling  its  effects. 

If  a  faction  consists  of  less  than  a  majority,  relief  is  supplied 
by  the  republican  principle,  which  enables  the  majority  to  de- 
feat its  sinister  views,  by  regular  vote.  It  may  clog  the  admin- 
istration, it  may  convulse  the  society ;  but  it  will  be  unable  to 
execute  and  mask  its  violence  under  the  forms  of  the  constitu- 
tion. When  a  majority  is  included  in  a  faction,  the  form  of 
popular  government,  on  the  other  hand,  enables  it  to  sacrifice 
to  its  ruling  passion  or  interest,  both  the  public  good  and  the 
rights  of  other  citizens.  To  secure  the  public  good,  and  private 
rights ,  against  the  danger  of  such  a  faction,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  preserve  the  spirit  and  the  form  of  popular  government,  is 
then  the  great  object  to  which  our  inquiries  are  directed.  Let 
me  add,  that  it  is  the  great  desideratum,  by  which  alone  this 
form  of  government  can  be  rescued  from  the  opprobrium  under 
which  it  has  so  long  labored,  and  be  recommended  to  the  esteem 
and  adoption  of  mankind. 

By  what  means  is  this  object  attainable  ?    Evidently  by  one 


32  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

of  two  only.  Either  the  existence  of  the  same  passion  or  in- 
terest in  a  majority,  at  the  same  time,  must  be  prevented;  or 
the  majority,  having  such  coexistent  passions  or  interest,  must 
be  rendered,  by  their  number  and  local  situation,  unable  to  con- 
cert and  carry  into  effect  schemes  of  oppression.  If  the  impulse 
and  the  opportunity  be  suffered  to  coincide,  we  well  know,  that 
neither  moral  nor  religious  motives  can  be  relied  on  as  an  ade- 
quate control.  They  are  not  found  to  be  such  on  the  injustice 
and  violence  of  individuals,  and  lose  their  efficacy  in  proportion 
to  the  number  combined  together;  that  is,  in  proportion  as 
their  efficacy  becomes  needful. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  may  be  concluded,  that  a 
pure  democracy,  by  which  I  mean  a  society  consisting  of  a  small 
number  of  citizens,  who  assemble  and  administer  the  govern- 
ment in  person,  can  admit  of  no  cure  from  the  mischiefs  of  fac- 
tion. A  common  passion  or  interest  will,  in  almost  every  case 
be  felt  by  a  majority  of  the  whole ;  a  communication  and  con- 
cert, results  from  the  form  of  government  itself;  and  there  is 
nothing  to  check  the  inducements  to  sacrifice  the  weaker  party, 
or  an  obnoxious  individual.  Hence  it  is,  that  such  democracies 
have  ever  been  spectacles  of  turbulence  and  contention ;  have 
ever  been  found  incompatible  with  personal  security,  or  the 
rights  of  property;  and  have  in  general,  been  as  short  in  their 
lives  as  they  have  been  violent  in  their  deaths.  .  . 

A  republic,  by  which  I  mean  a  government  in  which  the  scheme 
of  representation  takes  place,  opens  a  different  prospect,  and 
promises  the  cure  for  which  we  are  seeking.  Let  us  examine 
the  points  in  which  it  varies  from  a  pure  democracy,  and  we 
shall  comprehend  both  the  nature  of  the  cure  and  the  efficacy 
which  it  must  derive  from  the  union. 

The  two  great  points  of  difference,  between  a  democracy  and 
a  republic,  are,  first,  the  delegation  of  the  government,  in  the 
latter,  to  a  small  number  of  citizens  elected  by  the  rest ;  secondly, 
the  greater  number  of  citizens,  and  greater  sphere  of  country, 
over  which  the  latter  may  be  extended. 


Development  of  Party  Organization  33 

The  effect  of  the  first  difference  is,  on  the  one  hand,  to  refine 
and  enlarge  the  public  views,  by  passing  them  through  the 
medium  of  a  chosen  body  of  citizens,  whose  wisdom  may  best 
discern  the  true  interest  of  their  country,  and  whose  patriotism 
and  love  of  justice,  will  be  least  likely  to  sacrifice  it  to  temporary 
or  partial  considerations.  .  . 

The  other  point  of  difference  is,  the  greater  number  of  citizens 
and  extent  of  territory,  which  may  be  brought  within  the  com- 
pass of  republican,  than  of  democratic  government;  and  it  is 
this  circumstance  principally  which  renders  factious  combina- 
tions less  to  be  dreaded  in  the  former,  than  in  the  latter.  The 
smaller  the  society,  the  fewer  probably  will  be  the  distinct  parties 
and  interests  composing  it;  the  fewer  the  distinct  parties  and 
interests,  the  more  frequently  will  a  majority  be  found  of  the  same 
party ;  and  the  smaller  the  number  of  individuals  composing  a 
majority,  and  the  smaller  the  compass  within  which  they  are 
placed,  the  more  easily  will  they  concert  and  execute  their  plans 
of  oppression.  Extend  the  sphere,  and  you  take  in  a  greater 
variety  of  parties  and  interests ;  you  make  it  less  probable  that 
a  majority  of  the  whole  will  have  a  common  motive  to  invade 
the  rights  of  other  citizens,  or  if  such  a  common  motive  exists, 
it  will  be  more  difficult  for  all  who  feel  it  to  discover  their  own 
strength,  and  to  act  in  unison  with  each  other.  Besides  other 
impediments,  it  may  be  remarked,  that  where  there  is  a  con- 
sciousness of  unjust  or  dishonorable  purposes,  communication 
is  always  checked  by  distrust,  in  proportion  to  the  number  whose 
concurrence  is  necessary. 

(b)  THE  EARLY  FEAR  OF  PARTY  INFLUENCE1 

Here,  perhaps,  I  ought  to  stop.  But  a  solicitude  for  your 
welfare,  which  cannot  end  but  with  my  life,  and  the  apprehension 
of  danger,  natural  to  that  solicitude,  urge  me  on  an  occasion  like 

1  Washington,  G.,  Farewell  Address.  Writings  of  Washington,  Evans, 
L.  B.,  ed.  Putnam's,  New  York,  1908;  p.  539  et  seq.  (excerpt). 


34  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  present,  to  offer  to  your  solemn  contemplation,  and  to  rec- 
ommend to  your  frequent  review,  some  sentiments ;  which  are 
the  result  of  much  reflection,  of  no  inconsiderable  observation, 
and  which  appear  to  me  all-important  to  the  permanency  of 
your  felicity  as  a  People.  These  will  be  offered  to  you  with  the 
more  freedom,  as  you  can  only  see  in  them  the  disinterested 
warnings  of  a  parting  friend,  who  can  possibly  have  no  personal 
motive  to  bias  his  counsels.  Nor  can  I  forget,  as  an  encourage- 
ment to  it  your  indulgent  reception  of  my  sentiments  on  a  former 
and  not  dissimilar  occasion.  .  . 

To  the  efficacy  and  permanency  of  your  Union,  a  Government 
for  the  whole  is  indispensable.  No  alliances  however  strict  be- 
tween the  parts  can  be  an  adequate  substitute.  They  must  in- 
evitably experience  the  infractions  and  interruptions  which  all 
alliances  in  all  times  have  experienced.  Sensible  of  this  momen- 
tous truth,  you  have  improved  upon  your  first  essay,  by  the 
adoption  of  a  Constitution  of  Government,  better  calculated 
than  your  former  for  an  intimate  Union,  and  for  the  efficacious 
management  of  your  common  concerns.  This  government,  the 
offspring  of  your  own  choice  uninfluenced  and  unawed,  adopted 
upon  full  investigation  and  mature  deliberation,  completely 
free  in  its  principles,  in  the  distribution  of  its  powers,  uniting 
security  with  energy,  and  containing  within  itself  a  provision 
for  its  own  amendment,  has  a  just  claim  to  your  confidence  and 
your  support.  Respect  for  its  authority,  compliance  with  its 
Laws,  acquiescence  in  its  measures,  are  duties  enjoined  by  the 
fundamental  maxims  of  true  Liberty.  The  basis  of  our  political 
systems  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  make  and  to  alter  their  Con- 
stitutions of  Government.  But  the  Constitution  which  at  any 
time  exists,  till  changed  by  an  explicit  and  authentic  act  of  the 
whole  people,  is  sacredly  obligatory  upon  all.  The  very  idea  of 
the  power  and  the  right  of  the  people  to  establish  Government, 
presupposes  the  duty  of  every  individual  to  obey  the  established 
Government. 

All  obstructions  to  the  execution  of  the  Laws,  all  combinations 


Development  of  Party  Organization  35 

and  associations,  under  whatever  plausible  character,  with  the 
real  design  to  direct,  controul,  counteract,  or  awe  the  regular 
deliberation  and  action  of  the  constituted  authorities,  are  de- 
structive of  this  fundamental  principle,  and  of  fatal  tendency. 
They  serve  to  organize  faction,  to  give  it  an  artificial  and  ex- 
traordinary force  —  to  put,  in  the  place  of  the  delegated  will  of 
the  Nation,  the  will  of  a  party ;  —  often  a  small  but  artful  and 
enterprising  minority  of  the  community ;  —  and,  according  to 
the  alternate  triumphs  of  different  parties,  to  make  the  public 
administration  the  mirror  of  the  ill-concerted  and  incongruous 
projects  of  faction,  rather  than  the  organ  of  consistent  and  whole- 
some plans  digested  by  common  councils,  and  modified  by  mu- 
tual interests.  However  combinations  or  associations  of  the 
above  description  may  now  and  then  answer  popular  ends,  they 
are  likely,  in  the  course  of  time  and  things,  to  become  potent 
engines,  by  which  cunning,  ambitious,  and  unprincipled  men 
will  be  enabled  to  subvert  the  Power  of  the  People  and  to  usurp 
for  themselves  the  reins  of  Government ;  destroying  afterwards 
the  very  engines  which  have  lifted  them  to  unjust  dominion. 

Towards  the  preservation  of  your  Government  and  the  per- 
manency of  your  present  happy  state,  it  is  requisite,  not  only 
that  you  steadily  discountenance  irregular  oppositions  to  its 
acknowledged  authority,  but  also  that  you  resist  with  care  the 
spirit  of  innovation  upon  its  principles,  however  specious  the 
pretexts.  One  method  of  assault  may  be  to  effect,  in  the  forms 
of  the  Constitution,  alterations  which  will  impair  the  energy 
of  the  system,  and  thus  to  undermine  what  cannot  be  directly 
overthrown.  In  all  the  changes  to  which  you  may  be  invited, 
remember  that  time  and  habit  are  at  least  as  necessary  to  fix 
the  true  character  of  Governments,  as  of  other  human  institu- 
tions —  that  experience  is  the  surest  standard,  by  which  to  test 
the  real  tendency  of  the  existing  Constitution  of  a  Country  — 
that  facility  in  changes  upon  the  credit  of  mere  hypothesis  and 
opinion  exposes  to  perpetual  change,  from  the  endless  variety 
of  hypothesis  and  opinion:  —  and  remember,  especially,  that 


36  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

for  the  efficient  management  of  your  common  interests,  in  a  coun- 
try so  extensive  as  ours,  a  Government  of  as  much  vigour  as  is 
consistent  with  the  perfect  security  of  Liberty  is  indispensable. 
Liberty  itself  will  find  in  such  a  Government,  with  powers 
properly  distributed  and  adjusted,  its  surest  Guardian.  It 
is  indeed  little  else  than  a  name,  where  the  Government  is  too 
feeble  to  withstand  the  enterprises  of  faction,  to  confine  each 
member  of  the  Society  within  the  limits  prescribed  by  the  laws, 
and  to  maintain  all  in  the  secure  and  tranquil  enjoyment  of  the 
rights  of  person  and  property. 

I  have  already  intimated  to  you  the  danger  of  Parties  in  the 
State,  with  particular  reference  to  the  founding  of  them  on  Geo- 
graphical discriminations.  Let  me  now  take  a  more  compre- 
hensive view,  and  warn  you  in  the  most  solemn  manner  against 
the  baneful  effects  of  the  Spirit  of  Party,  generally. 

This  Spirit,  unfortunately,  is  inseparable  from  our  nature, 
having  its  root  in  the  strongest  passions  of  the  human  mind. 
It  exists  under  different  shapes  in  all  Governments,  more  or  less 
stifled,  controuled,  or  represented ;  but,  in  those  of  the  popular 
form,  it  is  seen  in  its  greatest  rankness,  and  is  truly  their  worst 
enemy. 

The  alternate  domination  of  one  faction  over  another,  sharp- 
ened by  the  spirit  of  revenge  natural  to  party  dissension,  which 
in  different  ages  and  countries  has  perpetrated  the  most  horrid 
enormities,  is  itself  a  frightful  despotism.  But  this  leads  at 
length  to  a  more  formal  and  permanent  despotism.  The  dis- 
orders and  miseries,  which  result,  gradually  incline  the  minds  of 
men  to  seek  security  and  repose  in  the  absolute  power  of  an  In- 
dividual :  and  sooner  or  later  the  chief  of  some  prevailing  fac- 
tion, more  able  or  more  fortunate  than  his  competitors,  turns 
this  disposition  to  the  purposes  of  his  own  elevation,  on  the  ruins 
of  Public  Liberty. 

Without  looking  forward  to  an  extremity  of  this  kind,  (which 
nevertheless  ought  not  to  be  entirely  out  of  sight),  the  common 
and  continual  mischiefs  of  the  spirit  of  Party  are  sufficient  to 


Development  of  Party  Organization  37 

make  it  the  interest  and  duty  of  a  wise  People  to  discourage  and 
restrain  it. 

It  serves  always  to  distract  the  Public  Councils,  and  enfeeble 
the  Public  administration.  It  agitates  the  community  with  ill- 
founded  jealousies  and  false  alarms,  kindles  the  animosity  of 
one  part  against  another,  foments  occasionally  riot  and  insurrec- 
tion. It  opens  the  doors  to  foreign  influence  and  corruption, 
which  find  a  facilitated  access  to  the  Government  itself  through 
the  channels  of  party  passions.  Thus  the  policy  and  the  will 
of  one  country,  are  subjected  to  the  policy  and  will  of  another. 

There  is  an  opinion  that  parties  in  free  countries  are  useful 
checks  upon  the  Administration  of  the  Government,  and  serve 
to  keep  alive  the  Spirit  of  Liberty.  This  within  certain  limits 
is  probably  true  —  and  in  Governments  of  a  Monarchical  cast, 
Patriotism  may  look  with  indulgence,  if  not  with  favour,  upon 
the  spirit  of  party.  But  in  those  of  the  popular  character,  in 
Governments  purely  elective,  it  is  a  spirit  not  to  be  encouraged. 
From  their  natural  tendency,  it  is  certain  there  will  always  be 
enough  of  that  spirit  for  every  salutary  purpose,  —  and  there 
being  constant  danger  of  excess,  the  effort  ought  to  be,  by  force 
of  public  opinion,  to  mitigate  and  assuage  it.  A  fire  not  to  be 
quenched ;  it  demands  a  uniform  vigilance  to  prevent  its  burst- 
ing into  a  flame,  lest,  instead  of  warming,  it  should  consume. 

2.  EARLY  MENTION  OF  CAUCUSES  AND  THEIR  IMPORTANCE  l 

Informal  meetings  to  agree  on  a  united  method  of  action 
in  the  elections  date  from  before  the  Revolution.  The  most 
famous  of  these  early  clubs  is  doubtless  the  Boston  Caucus  Club, 
one  of  whose  meetings  is  here  described  by  John  Adams. 

BOSTON.  February.  This  day  learned  that  the  Caucus  Club 
meets,  at  certain  times  in  the  garret  of  Tom  Dawes,  the  Adjutant 
of  the  Boston  Regulars.  He  has  a  large  house,  and  he  has  a 

1  Adams,  John.  The  Works  of  John  Adams,  edited  by  C.  F.  Adams. 
Little  and  Brown,  Boston,  1850;  Vol.  II,  p.  144. 


j  8  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

movable  partition  in  his  garret  which  he  takes  down,  and  the 
whole  club  meets  in  one  room.  There  they  smoke  tobacco  till 
you  cannot  see  from  one  end  of  the  garret  to  the  other.  There 
they  drink  flip,  I  suppose,  and  there  they  choose  a  moderator, 
who  puts  questions  to  the  vote  regularly;  and  selectmen,  as- 
sessors, collectors,  wardens,  fire-wards,  and  representatives,  are 
regularly  chosen  before  they  are  chosen  in  the  town.  Uncle 
Fairfield,  Story,  Ruddock,  Adams,  Cooper,  and  a  rudis  indiges- 
tague  moles  of  others  are  members.1  They  send  committees  to 
wait  on  the  merchant's  club,  and  to  propose  and  join  in  the 
choice  of  men  and  measures.  Captain  Cunningham  says,  they 
have  often  solicited  him  to  go  to  those  caucuses ;  they  have  as- 
sured him  benefits  in  his  business,  etc. 

1  Gordon  assigns  a  very  early  date  for  this  practice.  He  says :  "  More  than 
fifty  years  ago,"  (from  1774),  "Mr.  Samuel  Adams's  father  and  twenty  others, 
one  or  two  from  the  north  end  of  the  town,  where  all  the  ship  business  is 
carried  on,  used  to  meet,  make  a  caucus,  and  lay  their  plan  for  introducing 
certain  persons  into  places  of  trust  and  power.  When  they  had  settled  it, 
they  separated,  and  used  each  their  particular  influence  within  his  own  circle. 
He  and  his  friends  would  furnish  themselves  with  ballots,  including  the  names 
of  the  parties  fixed  upon,  which  they  distributed  on  the  days  of  election.  By 
acting  in  concert,  together  with  a  careful  and  extensive  distribution  of  bal- 
lots, they  generally  carried  the  elections  to  their  own  mind.  In  like  manner 
it  was,  that  Mr.  Samuel  Adams  first  became  a  representative  for  Boston." 
—  History  of  the  American  Revolution,  Vol.  I,  p.  365,  note. 

3.    THE  CONGRESSIONAL  CAUCUS  1 

The  National  Government  did  not  remain  free  from  polit- 
ical struggles  as  the  founders  had  wished.  The  legislature 
soon  became  the  battle  ground  of  the  parties.  This  was  a  nat- 
ural development,  for  there  were  gathered  representatives  from 
the  various  districts  who  had  the  party  interests  constantly  in 
mind.  Unfortunately  only  those  districts  were  represented  at 
the  party  councils  which  had  been  controlled  by  the  party  at 
the  previous  election.  Difficulty  of  communication,  however, 

1  Ostrogorski,  M.,  Democracy  and  the  Organization  of  Political  Parties. 
Macmillan,  New  York,  1902;  Vol.  II,  pp.  13-19. 


Development  of  Party  Organization  39 

made  any  other  method  of  organization  even  less  satisfactory. 
Undemocratic  though  it  was,  the  congressional  caucus  and  the 
corresponding  legislative  caucus  in  the  states  became  the  ac- 
cepted method  of  united  party  action. 

In  the  first  two  presidential  elections  the  choice  of  the  can- 
didates took  place  of  itself,  so  to  speak :  Washington  was  marked 
out  on  all  sides  for  the  chief  magistracy  of  the  new  republic ;  he 
was  elected  and  re-elected  by  acclamation  to  the  Presidency, 
and  with  him  John  Adams  to  the  Vice-Presidency.  But  after 
Washington's  imminent  retirement,  in  1796,  the  struggle  began. 
About  the  anti-Federalist  candidate  there  were  no  differences 
of  opinion ;  he  was,  of  course,  Thomas  Jefferson,  while  on  the 
Federalist  side  there  was  not  the  same  unanimity  in  favour  of 
John  Adams,  whose  occupancy  of  the  dignity  of  Vice-President 
for  eight  years,  by  the  side  of  Washington,  pointed  him  out  as 
the  latter's  successor.  In  spite  of  some  intrigues  against  him 
within  the  ranks  of  the  Federalists,  he  was  nevertheless  elected. 
But  the  antipathy  with  which  he  inspired  several  Federalist 
leaders,  and  especially  Hamilton,  broke  out  with  renewed  vigour 
at  the  approach  of  the  election  of  1800.  The  want  of  unanimity 
in  the  Federalist  camp  was  aggravated  by  the  confusion  caused 
by  the  death  of  Washington,  whose  great  prestige  alone  still 
shielded  the  Federalist  party,  which  was  daily  losing  ground  in 
the  country  although  it  had  a  majority  in  Congress.  The  im- 
minent danger  of  the  success  of  Jefferson  and  of  the  triumph  of 
radicalism  in  the  government  appeared  to  the  Federalists  of  the 
Congress  to  demand  their  intervention  in  the  presidential  elec- 
tion, from  which  the  Constitution  had  carefully  banished  them. 
For  some  time  past  the  Federalist  members  of  Congress,  and 
the  Senators  in  the  first  place,  had  been  in  the  habit  of  holding 
semi-official  meetings,  to  which  the  familiar  name  of  caucus  was 
applied,  to  settle  their  line  of  conduct  beforehand  on  the  most 
important  questions  coming  before  Congress.  The  decisions 
arrived  at  by  the  majority  of  the  members  present  were  consid- 
ered as  in  honour  binding  the  minority ;  ,  being  consequently 


40  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

clothed  with  a  moral  sanction,  they  gave  these  confabulations 
an  equitable  basis  and  almost  a  legal  authority.  In  this  way 
there  grew  up  at  an  early  stage,  at  the  very  seat  of  Congress,  an 
extra-constitutional  institution  which  prejudged  and  anticipated 
its  acts.  It  was  now  about  to  reach  out  still  further  and  lay 
hold  of  a  matter  which  was  entirely  beyond  the  competence  of 
Congress.  It  appears  that  this  was  done  at  the  instigation  of 
Hamilton,  who,  being  anxious  to  push  Adams  on  one  side  and 
to  prevent  the  election  of  Jefferson,  wanted  to  get  the  electoral 
manoeuvre  which  he  had  hit  upon  for  this  purpose  sanctioned  by 
a  formal  decision  of  the  members  of  the  party  in  Congress.  The 
latter  took  the  decision,  nominated  in  consequence  the  candi- 
dates for  the  Presidency  and  the  Vice-Presidency  of  the  Union, 
and  agreed  to  try  and  get  them  accepted  by  the  Electors.  This 
nomination  became  the  precedent  for  a  practice  which  completely 
destroyed  the  whole  scheme  of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution 
for  the  election  of  the  President.  The  electoral  device  adopted 
by  the  Federalist  caucus  became  known  through  a  private  letter 
from  one  of  its  members  to  his  constituents ;  the  Caucus  took 
care  not  to  give  it  out  in  its  own  name,  it  wrapped  all  its  pro- 
ceedings in  profound  secrecy.  And  when  a  journalist  of  the 
opposition,  the  famous  W.  Duane,  denounced  them  in  his  paper 
Aurora,  published  at  Philadelphia,  and  attacked  the  actual  prac- 
tice of  the  caucuses,  the  "Jacobinical  conclave,"  he  was  called 
before  the  bar  of  the  Senate  for  his  "  falsely  defamatory,  scan- 
dalous, and  malicious  assertions,"  and  barely  managed  to  escape 
from  the  formal  proceedings  which  had  been  taken  against  him. 
In  their  anti-Federalist  press  of  Boston  a  violent  protest  was 
also  made  against  "the  arrogance  of  a  number  of  Congress  to 
assemble  as  an  electioneering  caucus  to  control  the  citizens  in 
their  constitutional  rights."  But  this  did  not  prevent  the  Re- 
publicans themselves,  the  anti-Federalist  members  of  Congress, 
from  holding  a  caucus,  also  secret,  for  the  nomination  of  candi- 
dates to  the  two  highest  executive  offices  of  the  Union;  they 
had  only  to  concern  themselves  with  the  Vice-Presidency,  how- 


Development  of  Party  Organization  41 

ever,  since  Jefferson's  candidature  for  the  first  of  these  posts 
was  a  foregone  conclusion.  It  seems  that  Madison,  the  future 
President  of  the  United  States,  took  the  leading  part  in  this 
caucus. 

At  the  next  presidential  election,  in  1804,  the  Congressional 
Caucus  reappeared,  but  on  this  occasion  it  no  longer  observed 
secrecy.  The  Republican  members  of  Congress  met  publicly 
and  settled  the  candidatures  with  all  the  formalities  of  delibera- 
tive assemblies,  as  if  they  were  acting  in  pursuance  of  their  man- 
date. The  Federalists,  who  were  almost  annihilated  as  a  party 
since  Jefferson's  victory,  in  1801,  gave  up  holding  caucuses  al- 
together. Henceforth  there  met  only  a  Republican  Congres- 
sional Caucus,  which  appeared  on  the  scene  every  four  years 
at  the  approach  of  the  presidential  election.  To  strengthen 
its  action  in  the  country  it  provided  itself  (in  1812)  with  a  special 
organ  in  the  form  of  a  corresponding  committee,  in  which  each 
State  was  represented  by  a  member,  and  which  saw  that  the 
decisions  of  the  Caucus  were  respected.  Sometimes  the  state 
Caucuses  intervened  in  the  nomination  of  candidates  for  the 
presidency  of  the  Republic;  they  proposed  names,  but  in  any 
event  the  Congressional  Caucus  always  had  the  last  word. 
Thus  in  1808,  with  two  powerful  competitors  for  the  succession 
to  Jefferson,  Madison  and  Monroe,  both  put  forward  in  the 
influential  Caucus  of  Virginia,  the  Congressional  Caucus  pro- 
nounced for  Madison,  while  taking  the  formal  precaution  to  de- 
clare that  the  persons  present  made  this  recommendation  in 
their  "private  capacity  of  citizens."  Several  members  of  Con- 
gress, who  did  not  want  to  have  Madison,  appealed  to  the  coun- 
try, protesting  not  only  against  the  regularity  of  the  procedure 
of  the  Caucus,  but  also  against  the  institution  of  the  Caucus 
itself.  The  Caucus  none  the  less  won  the  day,  the  whole  party 
in  the  country  accepted  its  decision,  and  Madison  was  elected. 
The  same  thing  took  place  in  1812,  in  spite  of  an  attempted 
split  in  the  State  of  New  York,  the  Legislature  of  which  officially 
brought  forward  its  illustrious  statesman,  DeWitt  Clinton, 


42  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

against  Madison,  who  was  seeking  re-election.  In  vain  did  the 
Legislature  of  New  York,  in  a  manifesto  issued  for  the  occasion, 
try  to  stir  up  local  jealousies,  by  protesting  against  the  habitual 
choice  for  the  presidency  of  citizens  of  the  State  of  Virginia, 
against  the  perpetuation  of  the  "Virginia  dynasty" ;  in  vain  did 
it  appeal  to  democratic  susceptibilities  by  denouncing  the  usurpa- 
tion by  the  coterie  of  the  Congressional  Caucus  of  a  right  be- 
longing to  the  people.  Madison  was  re-elected.  In  1816,  when 
the  Caucus  met  again  to  choose  a  successor  to  Madison,  Henry 
Clay  brought  in  a  motion  declaring  the  nomination  of  the  Presi- 
dent in  caucus  inexpedient,  but  his  proposal  was  rejected ;  a  sim- 
ilar resolution  introduced  by  another  member  shared  the  same 
fate.  The  Caucus  adopted  the  candidature  of  Monroe,  who 
was  Madison's  favourite,  just  as  this  latter  was  in  a  way  desig- 
nated to  the  Caucus  by  his  predecessor  Jefferson.  The  majority 
obtained  by  Monroe  was  but  slight  (65  votes  to  54),  but  as  soon 
as  the  result  was  announced  Clay  at  once  requested  the  assembly 
to  make  Monroe's  nomination  unanimous.  Such  was  the  weight 
which  the  decision  of  the  majority  of  the  Caucus  had  with  every 
member,  that  it  was  considered  binding  in  honour  on  him  as  well 
as  on  every  adherent  of  the  party  in  the  country  who  did  not 
care  to  incur  the  reproach  of  political  heresy,  of  apostasy.  Under 
cover  of  these  notions  there  arose  in  the  American  electorate 
the  convention,  nay,  the  dogma,  of  regular  candidatures,  adopted 
in  party  councils,  which  alone  have  the  right  to  court  the  popu- 
lar suffrage.  Complying  with  this  rule,  the  Electors,  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  Constitution,  were  to  be  the  unfettered  commis- 
sioners of  the  people  in  the  choice  of  the  chief  magistrate,  and 
to  consult  only  their  judgment  and  their  conscience,  simply 
registered  the  decision  taken  at  Washington  by  the  Congressional 
Caucus. 

The  authority  of  the  Congressional  Caucus  which  got  its  rec- 
ommendations accepted  with  this  remarkable  alacrity  and  made 
the  "nomination"  equivalent  to  the  election,  rested  on  two  facts. 
On  the  one  hand,  there  was  the  prestige  attaching  to  the  rank  of 


Development  of  Party  Organization  43 

the  men  who  composed  the  Caucus  and  to  their  personal  posi- 
tion in  the  country.  They  represented  in  the  capital  of  the 
Union  the  same  social  and  political  element,  and  in  a  still  higher 
degree,  which  the  members  of  the  legislative  caucuses  represented 
in  the  States,  that  is,  the  leadership  of  the  natural  chiefs,  whose 
authority  was  still  admitted  and  tacitly  acknowledged.  .  . 

The  members  of  the  Congressional  Caucus  and  the  members 
of  the  legislative  caucuses  of  the  States,  or,  to  use  Hamilton's 
expression,  "the  leaders  of  the  second  class"  constituted  in  fact 
a  sort  of  political  family,  and  the  latter  spontaneously  became 
the  agents  of  the  Congressional  Caucus ;  they  were,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  a  contemporary,  "as  prefects"  to  it,  set  in  motion  by 
a  simple  exchange  of  private  letters. 

Again,  the  members  of  the  Caucus  represented  the  force  ma- 
jeure  of  the  interests  of  the  Republican  party,  which  enforced  dis- 
cipline, which  compelled  obedience  to  the  word  of  command  from 
whatever  quarter  it  proceeded.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  the  anti- 
Federalists  believed  that  the  Republic  and  liberty  were  in  mortal 
danger,  that  they  were  menaced  by  the  Federalists,  whose  polit- 
ical ideal  was  the  English  constitutional  monarchy,  and  who, 
having  no  confidence  in  the  people,  in  its  intelligence  and  its 
virtue,  were  bent  on  an  authoritarian  "consolidated"  gov- 
ernment. .  . 

The  Federalist  party  soon  succumbed,  but  the  recollection  of 
the  dangers,  real  or  imaginary,  to  which  liberty  and  equality 
were  exposed  by  it,  survived  it  and  for  many  a  long  day  was  a 
sort  of  bugbear  which  the  leaders  of  the  victorious  party  had  no 
scruple  about  using  for  the  consolidation  of  their  power.  To 
prevent  the  Federalists  from  returning  to  the  charge,  the  Repub- 
licans had  to  carefully  guard  against  divisions,  and  it  was  to  avoid 
them,  to  concentrate  all  the  forces  of  the  party  in  the  great  fight 
for  the  Presidency,  that  the  Congressional  Caucus  obligingly 
offered  its  services. 


44  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 


4.    HOW    THE    CONGRESSIONAL    NOMINATING    CAUCUS    WORKED1 

The  following  account  gives  a  picture  of  the  Congressional 
Caucus  just  before  it  was  discarded  as  a  means  of  nominating 
the  President. 


CHAMBER  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTA- 
TIVES OF  THE  UNITED   STATES. 

FEBRUARY  14,  1824. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  republican  members  of  Congress,  as- 
sembled this  evening  pursuant  to  public  notice,  for  the  purpose 
of  recommending  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  suitable 
persons  to  be  supported  at  the  approaching  election,  for  the 
offices  of  president  and  vice  president  of  the  United  States : 

On  motion  of  Mr.  James  Barbour,  of  Virginia  — 

Mr.  Benjamin  Ruggles,  a  senator  from  the  state  of  Ohio,  was 
called  to  the  chair,  and  Mr.  Ela  Collins,  a  representative  from 
the  state  of  New  York,  was  appointed  secretary. 

Resolved,  That  this  meeting  do  now  proceed  to  designate,  by 
ballot,  a  candidate  for  president  of  the  United  States. 

Determined  in  the  affirmative. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  of  New  York,  it  was 

Resolved,  That  the  Chairman  call  up  the  republican  members 
of  congress  by  states,  in  order  to  receive  their  respective  ballots. 

Whereupon  the  Chairman  proceeded  to  a  call,  and  it  appeared 
the  following  members  were  present.  .  . 

Mr.  Bassett,  of  Virginia,  and  Mr.  Cambrelong,  of  New  York, 
were  appointed  tellers,  and,  on  counting  the  ballots,  it  appeared 
that 

William  H.  Crawford  had  sixty-four  votes, 

John  Quincy  Adams  two  votes, 

Andrew  Jackson  one  vote,  and 

Nathaniel  Macon  one  vote. 

1  Niles,  Weekly  Register,  I,  $d  ser.,  388  et  seq. 


Development  of  Party  Organization  45 

Mr.  Dickinson  of  New  York  then  submitted  the  following 
resolution,  which  was  agreed  to : 

Resolved,  That  this  meeting  do  now  proceed  to  designate,  by 
ballot,  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  vice  president  of  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  Van  Buren,  of  New  York,  then  stated  that  he  was  author- 
ized to  say  that  the  vice  president  having,  some  time  since,  de- 
termined to  retire  from  public  life,  did  not  wish  to  be  regarded 
by  his  friends  as  a  candidate  for  reelection  to  that  office. 

On  counting  the  ballots,  it  appeared  that  Albert  Gallatin,  of 
Pennsylvania,  had  fifty-seven  votes ;  John  Q.  Adams  of  Massa- 
chusetts, one  vote;  Samuel  Smith  of  Maryland,  one  vote; 
William  King  of  Maine,  one  vote;  Richard  Rush  of  Penn- 
sylvania, one  vote ;  Erastus  Root  of  New  York,  two  votes ;  John 
Tod  of  Pennsylvania,  one  vote ;  and  Walter  Lowrie  of  Penn- 
sylvania, one  vote. 

And,  thereupon,  Mr.  Clark  of  New  York  submitted  the  fol- 
lowing resolution,  to  wit : 

Resolved,  As  the  sense  of  this  meeting  that  William  H.  Craw- 
ford, of  Georgia,  be  recommended  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  as  a  proper  candidate  for  the  office  of  president,  and 
Albert  Gallatin,  of  Pennsylvania,  for  the  office  of  vice  presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  for  four  years  from  the  4th  of 
March  1825. 

Resolved,  That,  in  making  the  foregoing  recommendation, 
the  members  of  this  meeting  have  acted  in  their  individual  char- 
acters, as  citizens ;  that  they  have  been  induced  to  this  measure 
from  a  deep  and  settled  conviction  of  the  importance  of  union 
among  republicans,  throughout  the  United  States,  and,  as  the 
best  means  of  collecting  and  concentrating  the  feelings  and  wishes 
of  the  people  of  the  union,  upon  this  important  subject.  The 
question  being  put  upon  these  resolutions,  they  were  unani- 
mously agreed  to. 

Mr.  Holmes  of  Maine  then  moved  that  the  proceedings  of  the 
meeting  be  signed  by  the  chairman  and  secretary,  and  published, 


46  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

together  with  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  to 
be  prepared  by  a  committee  to-  be  appointed  for  the  purpose. 

On  motion,  it  was  ordered  that  this  committee  consist  of 
the  chairman  and  secretary  of  the  convention,  together  with  the 
gentlemen  whose  names  were  signed  to  the  notice  calling  the 
meeting. 

On  motion,  it  was  further 

Resolved,  That  the  chairman  and  secretary  inform  the  gentle- 
men nominated  for  the  offices  of  president  and  vice  president  of 
their  nomination,  and  learn  from  them  whether  they  are  will- 
ing to  serve  in  the  said  offices,  respectively. 

BENJAMIN  RUGGLES,  Chairman. 

E.  COLLINS,  Secretary. 

5.    THE  TRANSITION  FROM   THE  CONGRESSIONAL  CAUCUS  TO  THE 
NOMINATING    CONVENTION  * 

With  improved  methods  of  communication,  and  greater  in- 
terest in  politics  on  the  part  of  the  people,  the  feeling  developed 
that  the  Legislative  or  Congressional  Caucus  was  a  usurpation 
by  a  few  officeholders  of  the  right  to  control  the  party  machinery. 
A  revolt  within  the  party,  to  make  the  organization  more  demo- 
cratic, arose  which  resulted  in  the  creation  of  the  modern  nomi- 
nating convention. 

12.  Previous  to  the  election  of  1824,  ...  candidates  for 
the  Presidency  were  nominated  by  a  Congressional  caucus. 
With  the  commencement  of  the  revolt  against  the  caucus  sys- 
tem several  other  methods  of  nomination  sprang  up  which,  dur- 
ing the  campaign  of  1828,  obtained  possession  of  the  field.  The 
first  of  these  methods  is  that  of  nomination  by  a  State  legislature 
acting  in  its  official  capacity.  This  was  not  an  entirely  new 
method.  In  1807  President  Jefferson  received  addresses  from 
the  legislatures  of  several  states,  approving  the  general  course  of 
his  administration,  and  asking  him  to  accept  for  the  third  time 

1  Dallinger,  F.  W.,  Nominations  for  Elective  Office.    Longmans,  New  York, 

1903 ;  PP-  29-34. 


Development  of  Party  Organization  47 

the  Republican  nomination.  During  the  same  year  both 
branches  of  the  Kentucky  Legislature  unanimously  recommended 
James  Madison  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency.  In  all  the 
cases  previous  to  1824,  however,  the  real  work  of  nomination 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Congressional  caucus,  the  action  of  the 
legislatures  being  entirely  subsidiary.  It  was  not  until  the  cam- 
paign of  1824  that  nomination  "by  act  of  the  legislature"  came 
to  have  any  real  significance.  The  form  of  such  nominations  is 
very  well  shown  by  the  joint  resolution  adopted  by  the  Alabama 
Legislature  in  1824  recommending  Andrew  Jackson  for  the  Presi- 
dency. After  a  long  preamble  comes  the  following  resolution : 

Be  it  therefore  resolved  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  the  State  of  Alabama  in  general  assembly  convened 
that  we  believe  it  is  the  ardent  wish  of  a  large  majority  of  our 
constituents  that  General  Andrew  Jackson  should  succeed  Mr. 
Monroe  as  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  and  we 
have  no  doubt  he  will  receive  the  undivided  support  of  the  State 
of  Alabama;  wherefore,  be  it  resolved,  that  the  governor  of 
this  State  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  requested  to  transmit  to  the 
governors  of  each  of  our  sister  States,  copies  of  the  foregoing 
preamble  and  resolution. 

In  this  case,  however,  the  joint  resolution  was  vetoed  by 
Governor  Pickens,  who,  in  his  veto  message,  after  warmly  in- 
dorsing the  sentiment  of  the  resolutions,  gave  the  following  rea- 
sons for  his  action : 

It  is  because  I  believe  it  is  not  fairly  within  the  legitimate 
sphere  of  legislation,  and,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  with- 
out any  previous  example,  and  would  be  introductory  of 
unnecessary,  if  not  mischievous,  matters  into  our  legislative 
deliberations,  that  I  am  induced  not  to  add  my  signature  to 
the  joint  resolutions. 

After  the  above  veto  the  resolutions  were  laid  on  the  table, 
and  subsequently  a  resolution  was  introduced  and  adopted  by 
both  houses,  requesting  the  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives and  the  President  of  the  Senate  to  transmit  a  copy  of  the 


48  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

resolutions  to  the  executive  of  each  State,  and  to  each  of  the 
Alabama  Senators  and  Representatives  at  Washington. 

This  method  of  nomination,  which  was  common  in  the  cam- 
paigns of  1824,  1828  and  1832,  continued  to  exist  even  after  the 
adoption  of  the  national  convention  in  1832.  For  instance,  in 
January,  1835,  Hugh  L.  White  was  nominated  for  the  Presidency 
by  a  joint  resolution  of  the  Alabama  Legislature ;  while  as  late  as 
1842  John  C.  Calhoun  was  nominated  by  the  legislatures  of 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  as  a  candidate  for  the  election 
of  1844.  But  as  the  national  convention  system  came  to 
be  better  organized,  this  method  of  nomination  gradually 
disappeared. 

13.  Presidential  Nominations  by  State  Legislative  Caucus. 
Closely  akin  to  the  method  just  described  was  that  of  nomina- 
tion of  national  candidates  by  a  joint  caucus  of  the  party  mem- 
bers of  both  branches  of  a  State  legislature.  The  first  case  of 
actual  nomination  by  this  method  was  the  nomination  of  De- 
Witt  Clinton  by  a  caucus  of  the  Republican  members  of  the 
New  York  Legislature  in  1812.  With  the  commencement  of 
the  campaign  of  1824,  it  began  to  be  generally  adopted,  and  was 
the  commonest  mode  of  nomination  during  the  period  of  transi- 
tion from  the  Congressional  caucus  to  the  national  convention. 
The  mode  of  procedure  may  perhaps  be  best  illustrated  by  the 
following  example. 

On  November  1 8,  1822,  in  accordance  with  a  previous  notice, 
a  meeting  of  the  Republican  members  of  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Representatives  of  the  Kentucky  Legislature  was  held  in  the 
hall  of  the  House  of  Representatives  after  the  adjournment  of 
the  two  branches.  The  call  for  the  meeting  stated  the  object  to 
be  "the  consideration  of  the  propriety  of  recommending  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  some  suitable  person  to  fill  the  office 
of  President  of  the  United  States  after  the  expiration  of  the  pres- 
ent presidential  term."  The  meeting  was  organized  by  the 
choice  of  William  T.  Barry  as  chairman  and  Thomas  Speed  as 
secretary.  Mr.  George  Robertson  then  offered  a  resolution  and 


Development  of  Party  Organization  49 

address,  which  were  unanimously  adopted.     The  resolution  read 
as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  Henry  Clay,  late  Speaker  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  be  recommended  as  a  suitable  person  to  succeed 
James  Monroe  as  president. 

The  address  which  followed  the  resolution  states  Kentucky's 
claim  to  the  Presidency  on  the  ground  of  locality,  and  then  pro- 
ceeded to  eulogize  her  favorite  son  in  the  most  glowing  terms. 

This  method  of  nomination  by  State  legislative  caucus,  like 
its  contemporary  official  method,  continued  to  exist  after  1832, 
but  it  likewise  disappeared  with  the  firm  establishment  of  the 
convention  system. 

14.  Presidential  Nominations  by  Mixed  Conventions.  An- 
other method  of  nominating  national  candidates  in  vogue  dur- 
ing the  transition  period  was  by  a  convention  composed  of  the 
party  members  of  the  legislature,  together  with  delegates  from 
those  counties  or  towns  not  represented  in  the  legislature  by 
members  belonging  to  the  party  holding  the  convention.  A 
good  example  of  this  method  is  to  be  found  in  the  nomination  of 
John  Quincy  Adams  in  January,  1823,  at  a  "  joint  meeting  of  the 
Republican  members  of  the  Massachusetts  legislature  and  of 
Republican  delegates  from  the  various  towns  of  the  common- 
wealth not  represented  in  the  legislature.  The  mode  of  pro- 
cedure of  such  a  body  was  exactly  the  same  as  that  of  the  legis- 
lative caucus  already  described. 

This  method,  like  those  previously  described,  is  occasionally 
met  with  after  the  general  adoption  of  the  convention  system. 
For  instance,  in  February,  1843,  a  convention  composed  of  the 
Whig  members  of  the  Virginia  Legislature,  and  of  two  hundred 
delegates  from  different  parts  of  the  State,  was  held  at  Richmond, 
at  which  resolutions  were  adopted  nominating  Henry  Clay  as  the 
Whig  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  and  referring  the  nomina- 
tion of  a  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency  to  the  national  con- 
vention. 


50  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

15.  Presidential  Nominations  by  State  Conventions.  Still 
another  method  of  nominating  candidates  for  the  Presidency  is 
found  in  the  proceedings  of  a  "Jackson"  State  convention  held 
at  Harrisburg,  Pennsylvania,  in  January,  1828,  at  which  the 
following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted : 

Whereas,  the  Democratic  citizens  of  this  commonwealth  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  established  usages  of  the  party,  have  delegated 
to  this  convention  the  important  trust  of  nominating  candidates 
for  the  presidency  and  vice-presidency  of  the  United  States,  to 
be  supported  at  the  approaching  presidential  election:  And 
whereas  the  voice  of  the  Democratic  party  has  been  unequivo- 
cally expressed  in  favor  of  that  illustrious  and  patriotic  citizen, 
Andrew  Jackson  of  Tennessee,  as  president,  and  John  C.  Calhoun 
of  South  Carolina,  as  vice-president, 

Resolved,  That  Andrew  Jackson  of  Tennessee  be  nominated 
as  the  Democratic  candidate  of  Pennsylvania  for  the  office  of 
president  of  the  United  States,  — 

Resolved,  That  John  C.  Calhoun  of  South  Carolina  be  nom- 
inated for  the  office  of  vice-president  of  the  United  States. 

A  committee  was  appointed  to  draft  an  address  to  the  "  demo- 
cratic republican  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  on  the  subject  of  the 
approaching  election,"  and  in  addition  a  "central  committee  of 
correspondence"  was  appointed,  and  also  similar  committees  of 
every  county  in  the  State.  A  full  election  ticket  was  named 
in  the  Jackson  interest.  A  resolution  was  then  passed  that 
each  candidate  nominated  for  the  office  of  Presidential 
elector  give  "a  written  pledge  or  assurance"  that  if  elected 
he  would  vote  for  the  nominees  of  the  convention.  In  case 
any  candidate  refused  or  neglected  to  give  such  a  pledge,  the 
central  committee  was  empowered  to  substitute  some  other 
person  in  his  place.  The  central  committee  was  also  em- 
powered to  fill  all  vacancies  that  might  occur.  After  ordering 
that  fifteen  thousand  copies  of  the  address  be  printed,  —  one- 
third  of  them  in  the  German  language,  —  the  convention 
adjourned. 

Even  after  the  adoption  of  the  convention  system  in  national 


Development  of  Party  Organization  51 

politics,  the  State  conventions  continued  to  nominate  candi- 
dates for  the  Presidency,  the  effect  being  merely  an  expres- 
sion of  the  sentiment  of  the  party  in  the  State.  The  practice 
of  instructing  delegates  by  a  resolution  of  the  State 
convention  to  vote  for  a  certain  person  or  persons  at  the 
national  convention  which  subsequently  arose,  and  which  still 
exists,  is  apparently  a  survival  of  the  former  system  of  actual 
nomination. 

1 6.  Presidential  Nominations  by  Public  Meetings.     One  of 
the  most  interesting  features  of  the  campaign  of  1824  was  the 
almost  universal  practice  of  obtaining  the  preferences  of  the  peo- 
ple as  to  Presidential  candidates  at  all  sorts  of  public  gatherings. 
All  over  the  country  mass  meetings  were  held,  at  which  a  regular 
ballot  was  taken,  just  as  at  a  regular  election.     At  very  many  of 
these  meetings  formal  resolutions  were  adopted  nominating  some 
candidate  for  the  Presidency.     For  example,  in  March,  1824, 
such  a  meeting  was  held  at  Fredericksburg,  Virginia,  at  which 
John  Quincy  Adams  was  nominated  for  the  Presidency  and 
Andrew  Jackson  for   the  Vice-Presidency,  —  a  very  peculiar 
combination.     These  meetings  were  in  reality  simply  meetings 
held  to  ratify  the  nomination  of  candidates  who  had  been  pre- 
viously nominated  in  one  or  more  of  the  ways  already  described. 
In  other  words,  they  were  what  we  to-day  call  "rallies,"  the 
only    difference    being    the    formal    adoption    of    nominating 
resolutions. 

17.  Reasons  for  a  Change  of  System.    All  of  the  five  methods 
of  nomination  for  national  offices  which  have  just  been  described 
could  obviously  be  nothing  more  than  temporary  expedients. 
In  the  first  place,  all  except  the  State  convention  had  become 
antiquated;    and  secondly,  the  first  three  were  unpopular,  be- 
cause they  were  forms  of  legislative  interference  which,  in  the 
case  of  State  nominations,  had  already  been  abandoned  in  many 
of  the  States,  and  which,  in  national  politics,  had  met  with  a 
most  emphatic  rebuke  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Congressional 
caucus. 


52  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Again,  with  the  reorganization  of  political  parties  after  the 
"era  of  good  feeling,"  and  the  rapid  growth  of  population,  the 
utter  inadequacy  of  any  system  of  State  nomination  for  national 
offices  became  readily  apparent.  A  national  party  must  have  a 
national  system  of  nomination,  and  the  expedient  of  a  convention 
naturally  suggested  itself. 


III.  THE  CONVENTION  AND  THE  -DIRECT  PRIMARY 

I.     THE    STRENGTH    OF    THE   CONVENTION    SYSTEM  l 

A  convention  furnishes  a  means  of  bringing  out  unknown 
but  worthy  candidates,  discussing  the  merits  of  rivals,  arousing 
party  enthusiasm,  giving  consideration  to  all  interests  to  which 
the  party  appeal  is  to  be  made,  and  perfecting  the  smooth  work- 
ing of  the  party  machinery.  At  its  best,  the  convention  is  "a 
school  of  practical  politics." 

WHATEVER  may  be  said  of  the  present  state  of  this  old  institu- 
tion, it  ought  not  to  be  condemned  upon  superficial  and  insuffi- 
cient grounds.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  course  of  its 
time-honored  existence  it  has  been  of  inestimable  service  to  this 
country.  Its  evolution  which  has  already  been  traced  shows 
that  the  forces  which  created  it  were  democratic ;  that  it  arose 
as  the  servant  of  the  people.  .  . 

As  in  the  past  our  nominating  institutions  have  conformed  to 
the  times  and  the  tenor  of  the  people,  so  may  the  convention 
system  of  to-day  be  changed  or  wholly  abolished.  The  mere 
fact  of  its  long  existence  does  not  argue  for  continued  life.  .  . 

Theoretically  the  convention  system  is  perfect.  It  passes 
the  highest  test  of  a  political  institution  in  a  democratic  com- 
munity. It  admits  of  the  purest  application  of  the  principle 
of  representation  or  delegated  authority.  Step  by  step  the  voice 
of  each  individual  voter  can,  in  theory,  be  transmitted  from 
delegate  to  delegate  until  finally  it  finds  its  perfect  expression 
in  the  legislature,  the  executive,  or  the  judiciary.  The  nearest 

1  Meyer,  E.  C.,  Nominating  Systems.  Madison,  Wisconsin,  1902 ;  pp. 
48-54. 

53 


54  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

approach  to  such  ideal  conditions  of  operation  was  reached  by 
the  convention  system  during  its  early  days. 

As  a  party  institution,  the  convention  once  occupied  the  high- 
est and  most  important  position.  When  so  conducted  as  to 
command  the  confidence  and  respect  of  the  party,  it  was  the 
foundation  of  party  success.  Within  it  there  sprang  up  the  cen- 
tral moving  figures  of  the  campaign.  It  contributed  to  bind 
party  elements  firmly  together,  and  to  inspire  enthusiastic  party 
life,  and  thereby  performed  a  valuable  service  in  the  cause  of 
government.  .  . 

The  convention  was  the  foundation  of  party  success,  because 
it  furnished  an  excellent  opportunity  for  the  perfection  of  party 
organization,  as  well  as  for  the  prosecution  of  a  vigorous  cam- 
paign, in  which  all  party  forces  were  formed  in  line  and  operated 
with  united  power  for  a  common  end.  It  afforded  an  excellent 
opportunity  for  the  estimation  of  a  party's  strength,  for  it  was 
composed  of  men  from  every  locality,  and  from  every  part  of 
the  State.  Usually  these  were  representative  men,  fully  cogni- 
zant of  party  conditions  in  their  home  community.  Through 
their  conference  the  standing  and  fortunes  of  the  party  were 
ascertained,  and  the  party  policy  shaped  accordingly. 

It  also  afforded  opportunity  for  the  estimation  of  a  candi- 
date's real  popularity.  Fatal  mistakes  were  sometimes  avoided 
by  the  timely  substitution  of  new  nominees  for  intended  candi- 
dates, whose  standing  with  the  party  masses  had  been  misjudged. 
A  party  to  be  successful  must  offer  to  the  public,  men  who  will 
be  well  supported,  and  upon  whom  the  people  are  willing  to 
bestow  the  title  of  a  public  servant.  Such  candidates  could 
well  be  chosen  in  a  gathering  of  party  men,  representing  all  geo- 
graphical areas,  all  interests,  and  all  factions  covered  by  the 
election. 

It  has  also  happened  that  in  conventions  an  "undiscovered" 
candidate  of  good  parts  and  popular  quality  was  successfully 
advertised  and  came  before  the  electorate  in  time  to  win  success 
for  the  party.  A  capable  man,  who  was  unknown  to  the  mass  of 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary        55 

party  voters,  and  who  might  possibly  have  remained  unknown 
too  long  to  be  of  service  to  his  party,  has  been  accidentally  so 
discovered  and  nominated,  and  his  party  and  the  public  well 
served  by  him. 

Likewise,  also,  men  of  special  merit  have  found  in  the  meetings 
of  delegates  fortunate  opportunities  for  acquiring  prominence 
without  great  loss  of  time  or  money.  To  these  time  is  often 
more  important  than  money.  The  necessary  personal  adver- 
tising required  for  a  preliminary  canvass,  aside  from  its  disagree- 
able features,  would  have  consumed  a  forbidding  amount  of  time 
if  done  with  sufficient  thoroughness  to  insure  a  nomination ;  while 
many  a  young  man  of  ability  would  have  found  the  drain  upon 
his  finances  in  conducting  a  protracted  personal  campaign  too 
severe  to  enable  him  to  win  the  day  for  himself  in  the  usual  way. 

A  harmonious  party  convention  has  always  presented  excel- 
lent opportunities  for  arousing  party  enthusiasm.  Under  such 
conditions  partisan  meets  partisan,  speeches  are  made  and  heard, 
the  party  enthusiasm  of  the  North  greets  that  of  the  South,  the 
party  cry  of  the  West  mingles  with  that  of  the  East,  party  spirit 
rises  to  its  height,  and  inspires  its  color  bearers  to  act  their  best. 
Not  only  would  party  fires  flame  up  in  such  conventions,  but 
each  of  the  delegates  returning  to  his  community  warmed  with 
the  spirit  of  party  enthusiasm,  would  reinforce  the  local  cam- 
paign with  renewed  vigor,  and  would  rally  his  wavering  friends 
to  freshened  efforts  and  stronger  party  affiliations. 

The  convention  at  its  best,  has  also  afforded  favorable  op- 
portunity for  the  conciliation  of  party  factions.  Unity  within 
a  party  is  absolutely  necessary  for  success,  unless  the  minority 
parties  are  unusually  weak.  This  unity  has  always  been  diffi- 
cult to  maintain.  It  is  natural  that  party  leaders  should  differ 
in  their  conceptions  of  what  would  be  the  best  party  policies. 
Each  stands  at  the  helm  of  the  party  in  his  own  locality,  and  has 
his  own  little  band  of  followers.  Each  develops  his  ideas  in  the 
light  of  his  home,  and  rallies  to  his  standard  the  partisan  friends 
of  the  neighborhood.  Some  day  they  must  clash.  That  day 


56  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

comes  with  the  opening  of  the  preliminary  campaign.  The 
party  platform  must  be  formulated,  and  the  party  candidates 
selected.  Differences  must  be  adjusted  and  compromises  must 
be  made.  The  convention  when  assembled  and  conducted  as  a 
deliberative  body  controlled  by  its  best  elements  for  the  greatest 
good,  would  be  an  ideal  place  for  settling  such  differences,  dimin- 
ishing the  chances  of  party  bolting,  because  the  consummated 
conciliation  would  be  a  general  one,  effected  in  the  presence  of 
the  main  party  spirits,  and  hence,  as  a  rule,  binding  and  abiding. 

The  ideal  convention  would  also  enable  the  selection  of  repre- 
sentative men  who  would  receive  the  most  general  support  of 
the  party,  because  proper  emphasis  could  be  placed  upon  the 
following  important  elements  of  party  success :  geographical 
distribution  of  the  candidates;  their  nationality;  their  social 
standing ;  the  class  represented ;  the  commercial,  industrial,  or 
agricultural  interests,  etc.,  that  they  stood  for;  the  shades  of 
political  ideas  entertained,  —  all  these  matters  could  be  duly 
considered. 

Such  a  convention  would  be  the  place  where  the  party  plat- 
form could  well  be  formulated.  It  would  be  a  deliberative  and 
thoroughly  representative  body,  where  every  locality,  every  fac- 
tion, every  class,  and  every  interest  would  find  a  voice  in  the 
meeting.  It  would  be  a  decidedly  up-to-date  body.  Its  dele- 
gates would  have  been  but  shortly  elected,  and  in  a  position  to 
define  party  issues  intelligently.  The  platform  which  they 
framed  would  have  the  general  confidence  of  the  party,  and  oper- 
ate as  a  binding  element  on  dissatisfied  members. 

The  convention  thus,  in  theory,  lies  at  the  foundation  of  party 
success.  It  perfects  party  organization,  measures  its  strength, 
conciliates  its  factions,  defines  its  issues,  selects  its  candidates, 
and  arouses  enthusiasm.  For  these  many  reasons  its  advocates 
still  regard  it  as  a  most  valuable  instrument  in  the  hands  of  the 
party.  .  . 

In  its  best  days  the  convention  was  also  a  school  of  practical 
politics.  In  it  the  youth  of  the  rising  generation,  who  were  to 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary         57 

control  the  destinies  of  the  Nation,  were  taught  the  earlier  and 
simpler  lessons  of  practical  politics.  They  learned  to  know  the 
constitution  and  operation  of  our  nominating  machinery,  and 
received  an  insight  into  the  inner  workings  of  party  politics. 
Such  experience  cannot  but  prove  of  great  worth  to  men  who  in 
the  future  assume  public  leadership  and  occupy  positions  of 
importance  in  the  public  service. 

2.     THE  CORRUPT  CONVENTION  l 

Any  indirect  method  of  representation  destroys  responsi- 
bility. The  management  of  caucuses  and  conventions  has  be- 
come so  complicated  that  they  are  practically  removed  from 
popular  control  and  fall  into  the  hands  of  professional  poli- 
ticians. 

The  convention  had  been  established  as  the  forum  of  the  people, 
where  they  should  try  out  the  merits  of  the  men  offered  as  candi- 
dates and  make  their  final  choice.  With  its  caucus  representa- 
tion, coming  up  from  each  township  and  ward  in  every  county, 
where  the  individual  might  attend  and  cast  his  vote  in  selection 
of  some  one  who  should  represent  him,  it  had  all  the  form  and 
appearance  of  a  representative  democracy.  In  practice  too  it 
had  been  of  real  service  to  the  people,  as  a  medium  through  which 
to  express  their  will.  But  the  day  had  long  passed,  since  the 
plain  citizen  learned,  that  the  management  of  caucuses  and  con- 
ventions had  been  taken  charge  of  by  gentlemen  trained  to  the 
work.  In  the  years  of  phenomenal  material  development,  while 
he  had  been  occupied  with  business  affairs,  absorbed  in  his  pro- 
fession, working  long  hours  in  the  field  and  factory,  when  the 
issues  had  seemed  to  him  important  in  a  certain  sense,  but  not 
so  deeply,  vitally  important  as  when  they  concerned  the 
fate  of  government  itself  —  during  these  years  when  he  had  at- 
tended to  his  private  affairs  and  omitted  his  public  duties  — 

1  Lafollette,  R.  M.,  Primary  Elections.  Address  delivered  before  Michi- 
gan University,  Ann  Arbor,  Michigan,  March  12,  1898. 


58  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

a  new  kind  of  business  had  been  established.  The  management 
of  caucuses  and  conventions  had  acquired  the  importance  of  a 
profession.  Well  distributed  over  the  state  skilled  men  served 
in  this  employment  constantly.  The  plain  citizen  had  met  these 
gentlemen  in  the  caucuses  and  conventions,  and  long  ago  dis- 
covered it  was  useless  to  contest  with  them.  They  are  parts  of 
an  organization,  select,  compact,  disciplined.  They  receive  their 
orders  without  question  and  execute  them  without  fear.  They 
are  parts  of  the  political  machine.  They  have  been  able  to 
subvert  the  caucus  and  convention  and  substitute  the  dictates  of 
the  machine  for  the  will  of  the  people.  It  was  not  so  difficult  a 
task.  It  required  money,  the  constant  co-operation  of  a  few 
quick  minded  men,  ready  of  speech,  possessed  of  some  knowledge 
of  parliamentary  law,  a  programme  carefully  worked  out  in  ad- 
vance and  a  conscience  that  sleeps  while  its  owner  wakes.  The 
masters  of  commerce  and  trade  supplied  the  money.  The  money 
secured  the  men.  The  rest  was  easy. 

Well  might  they  laugh  at  the  Australian  ballot.  Not  to  be 
obliged  to  buy  an  election,  simplified  matters  for  them.  Well 
might  they  say:  "Elect  whomsoever  you  will,  if  we  make  the 
nominations."  It  could  not  fail  to  come  sooner  or  later.  The 
very  plan  of  the  caucus  and  convention  invited  it. 

Consider  the  proceedings  to  nominate  candidates  for  office, 
in  a  political  convention  even  at  the  best.  The  delegates  are 
first  chosen  in  a  caucus  with  little  or  no  opportunity  for  well 
considered  action.  No  permanent  record  of  its  proceedings  is 
preserved.  Only  a  limited  number  of  those  who  attend,  desire 
to  spend  the  time  and  money  to  make  a  journey  to  the  place, 
where  will  be  held  the  convention,  not  to  make  nominations, 
but  to  elect  another  set  of  delegates  to  attend  upon  another  con- 
vention where  nominations  are  to  be  made.  In  this  intermedi- 
ate convention  the  work  is  necessarily  done  in  haste,  the  service 
is  very  brief.  The  proceedings  of  the  delegates  composing  this 
convention  find  no  fixed  place  in  political  history. 

The  delegates  elected  to  attend  upon  the  nominating  conven- 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary         59 

tion  are  again  confronted  with  the  expenditure  of  a  considerable 
sum  of  money  and  a  still  further  contribution  of  time  to  make  a 
journey  to  the  place  of  holding  the  final  or  nominating  conven- 
tion. The  men  willing  to  undertake  this  service  must  do  so 
either  from  pure  loyalty  to  party,  devotion  to  the  interest  of 
some  candidate  or  because  they  personally  aspire  to  receive  some 
political  preferment,  and  regard  the  time  and  money  spent  in 
the  light  of  a  political  investment. 

Mark,  ^iow,  what  has  transpired  !  The  voter  has  transferred 
his  interest  to  the  keeping  of  the  delegate  in  the  caucus.  He 
cannot  hope  that  his  agent  will  reflect  his  convictions  in  all  their 
original  strength.  He  must  expect  them  to  be  colored  in  a 
measure,  by  the  agent's  own  opinions.  But  when  the  caucus 
delegate,  as  a  member  of  the  intermediate  convention,  has  again 
transferred  the  interest  of  the  voter  committed  to  him  in  the 
caucus,  to  delegates  who  have  been  elected  to  attend  the  nomi- 
nating convention  —  doubtless  many  or  all  of  them  total  strangers 
to  him  personally  — •  to  be  again  colored  by  the  personal  views  and 
prejudices  of  these  sub-agents,  the  convictions  of  the  plain  citi- 
zen, the  voter  back  of  the  original  agent  and  the  sub-agents 
have  by  this  time  little  more  of  substance  than  the  dream  of  a 
dream.  With  every  transfer  of  this  delegated  power,  responsi- 
bility has  weakened  until  when  finally  it  has  made  its  winding 
journey  to  the  nominating  convention,  responsibility  to  the  voter 
has  been  lost  on  the  way. 

On  rare  occasions  under  special  provocation  the  community 
may  arise  and  overwhelm  the  minions  of  the  machine  in  the  cau- 
cus. Brief  victory !  Between  the  precinct  caucus  and  the  in- 
termediate convention,  the  intermediate  convention  and  the 
nominating  convention,  are  countless  pitfalls  for  the  unwary 
delegate,  countless  temptations  to  try  his  constancy,  conven- 
ient shifts  and  subterfuges  for  him  to  cover  his  want  of  fidelity. 
In  short  it  is  easy  for  him  to  blunder,  it  is  easy  for  him  to  be- 
tray the  voter  behind  him,  and  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  fasten 
responsibility  upon  him  for  anything  he  may  do. 


60  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

But  let  us  follow  this  perversion  of  representative  government 
to  the  very  end.  The  time  arrives  for  the  meeting  of  the  nomi- 
nating convention.  The  delegates  elected  by  the  intermediate 
convention  go  from  every  county,  to  the  place  designated  by  the 
State  Central  committee,  nominally  the  supreme  authority  of 
the  party.  The  gathering  of  delegates,  of  prominent  politicians, 
of  candidates  and  the  friends  of  candidates,  augmented  by  the 
multitude  which  contest  always  attracts,  crowd  the  rooms  and 
corridors  of  the  hotels,  and  the  streets  of  the  city^  Political 
"  workers,"  not  elected  as  delegates,  many  of  whom  indeed  have 
been  defeated  as  delegates  in  the  local  caucus  and  intermediate 
convention,  arrive  early  and  take  active  part  in  the  real  work  of 
the  nominating  convention.  Though  they  may  have  been  re- 
jected as  untrustworthy  representatives  of  the  voters  at  home, 
they  frequently  exercise  a  controlling  influence  upon  the  action 
of  the  nominating  convention,  thus  defeating  the  will  of  the  ma- 
jority that  defeated  them  as  delegates.  They  plunge  at  once 
into  the  contest  and  the  commotion  increases  with  their  onset. 
Upon  all  sides  men  are  hurrying  to  and  fro.  Glib  talkers  are 
heard  in  heated  discussion.  Others  are  quietly  moving  through 
the  crowd,  dropping  significant  remarks  here  and  there,  setting 
on  certain  ones  to  talk,  starting  rumors  and  roorbacks,  loosening 
the  tongue  of  scandal  and  falsehood,  questioning,  doubting,  deal- 
ing in  hints  and  innuendoes,  raising  false  issues  against  one  candi- 
date, asserting  that  there  is  a  division  in  the  support  of  another, 
that  it  is  reported  that  another  has  given  up  the  contest  and  with- 
drawn, that  another  would  be  bolted  by  the  Germans  or  Irish  or 
Norwegians  if  nominated,  and  so  on  and  on  to  the  end  of  evil 
invention.  Every  hour  the  excitement  increases.  Investiga- 
tion is  baffled.  Explanations  are  of  no  avail.  There  is  no 
chance  for  argument.  The  truth  is  discounted.  Statements 
are  as  good  as  facts. 

The  time  approaches  when  the  convention  will  meet.  Away 
in  some  retired  room  behind  locked  doors  the  masters  of  the  ma- 
chine sit  in  quiet  conference.  They  have  issued  their  orders  to 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary         61 

those  in  nominal  control.  The  programme  of  the  convention  is 
all  prepared.  The  temporary  and  permanent  chairmen  have 
been  "elected"  in  advance,  notified  weeks  ago  and  are  present, 
each  with  an  impromptu  speech  of  acceptance  in  his  little  satchel. 
These  men  have  been  selected  by  the  masters  of  the  machine 
with  considerate  judgment.  There  will  be  no  mistakes  made. 
Men  designated  in  advance  will  be  recognized  by  the  chairman 
for  all  important  motions  at  the  "right  time."  All  troublesome 
points  of  order  will  be  promptly  overruled.  All  motions  will  be 
decided  in  the  "right  way."  These  precautions  have  been  found 
necessary  even  in  the  best  governed  machine  conventions,  for 
revolt  against  the  rule  of  the  machine  is  sometimes  to  be  expected 
and  always  provided  against.  Nothing  is  overlooked  here. 
There  is  no  haste,  no  confusion.  In  the  rooms  of  the  delegates, 
in  the  wide  corridors  of  the  hotel  below,  out  upon  the  streets  of 
the  city,  the  excited  mass  may  push  and  surge,  parry  and  thrust, 
accuse  and  deny,  hoot  and  cheer,  but  in  this  quiet  corner  all  is 
harmonious  and  peaceful.  And  it  is  here  that  the  work  of  the 
convention  is  being  performed,  here  that  the  combinations  are 
effected,  here  that  the  deals,  and  bargains,  and  trades,  and 
pledges,  and  promises  of  appointment,  are  being  made,  that  will 
settle  all  the  business  of  the  convention,  at  the  appointed  time. 

Finally  all  is  in  readiness,  the  hour  is  at  hand.  The  bands 
play.  The  delegations  take  their  places  under  the  waving  ban- 
ners, in  the  great  convention  hall.  Thousands  of  spectators 
look  down  upon  the  scene  from  the  lofty  galleries.  At  last  order 
and  quiet  prevails,  but  it  is  the  tense  quiet  of  suppressed  excite- 
ment. The  nerves  are  tingling,  the  pulses  bounding.  It  is  a 
powder  magazine  of  powerfully  restrained  human  emotions,  a 
spark,  a  gesture,  a  word,  and  an  explosion  follows. 

The  nominating  speeches  are  made.  With  each  presentation 
the  supporting  delegates  cheer  and  applaud  and  stamp  and  wave 
fans  and  flags  in  a  furious  demonstration  of  endorsement.  The 
convention  becomes  a  scene  of  wild  disorder.  Men  of  serious 
and  dignified  deportment  in  life  clamber  over  seats  and  rush 


62  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

back  and  forth,  frantically  shouting  the  names  of  their  favorite 
candidates,  until  they  finally  cease  from  sheer  exhaustion. 

And  this  is  a  deliberative  body  of  American  citizens,  engaged 
in  the  discharge  of  the  gravest  duty  which  can  ever  be  committed 
to  men,  under  a  representative  form  of  government !  Immortal 
fathers  who  founded  this  republic !  Let  us  believe  that  in  the 
providence  of  God  your  eyes  are  veiled  from  this  modern 
method  of  nominating  candidates  for  the  high  trust  of  public 
service. 

With  the  speech  making  at  an  end  the  balloting  begins,  but 
there  is  no  lull  in  the  storm.  The  announcement  of  the  votes  of 
each  delegation  is  greeted  with  applause  from  time  to  time,  ris- 
ing above  the  confusion  of  the  canvass  carried  on  by  the  more 
active  members  of  the  convention  as  they  rush  their  workers  from 
one  delegation  to  another  in  eager  quest  for  votes.  The  result 
of  the  ballot  when  declared,  if  not  final,  is  the  occasion  for  a 
storm  of  cheers  from  the  adherents  of  the  leading  candidates. 
Then  the  balloting  goes  forward  again. 

The  lightness  of  the  obligation  of  the  delegate,  to  the  voters 
he  represents,  now  becomes  manifest.  Many  who  have  with- 
stood the  blandishments  and  temptations  of  the  canvass  since 
their  arrival,  having  recorded  a  vote  for  the  choice  of  their  con- 
stituencies, hope  now  to  be  able  to  do  something  for  themselves, 
in  the  way  of  political  preferment  and  rush  wildly  for  the  "loaded 
wagon."  This  is  usually  followed  by  a  stampede  which  closes 
the  contest  and  reveals  the  inherent  weakness  of  a  plan  of  repre- 
sentation wholly  without  responsibility. 

The  work  of  the  convention  is  ended.  The  masters  of  the 
machine  have  had  their  way.  The  minority  from  their  quiet 
corner  in  the  hotel  have  ruled  the  great  majority  of  the  plain 
citizens  of  the  state.  The  men  named  as  candidates  are  the 
servants  of  the  minority.  They  know  their  masters.  They 
will  serve  them  well.  There  may  be  anger.  There  may  be 
disintegration  threatened  in  the  party.  But  the  machine  trusts 
to  the  white  heat  of  the  campaign  to  fuse  the  fragments  and  win 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary         63 

the  day.  It  has  succeeded  many  times  and  they  depend  on  high 
partisan  feeling,  strong  devotion  to  party  principles,  to  carry 
the  ticket  through.  What  though  the  voters  do  not  like  the 
candidates,  they  will  surely  prefer  them  to  the  candidates  of  the 
other  party  who  have  been  nominated  by  the  same  methods. 

This  then  is  the  work  of  the  modern  caucus  and  convention. 
No  candid  man  will  dispute  the  facts,  or  claim  that  the  portrayal 
too  strongly  presents  the  defects,  or  assert  that  the  more  debas- 
ing practices  are  even  hinted  at.  And  this  is  the  practical  result 
of  a  century  of  effort  in  self-government.  In  this  land  of  the 
free,  dedicated  to  the  principles  of  democracy,  climbing  by  the 
caucus  and  the  convention,  the  machine  has  mounted  to  power  in 
nearly  every  state  of  the  Union. 

It  controls  in  making  the  laws.  It  controls  in  executing  the 
laws.  It  prostitutes  the  civil  service  and  does  riot  spare  even 
the  charitable  and  penal  institutions  of  the  state.  It  increases 
the  burdens  of  taxation  upon  the  homes  and  finds  an  easy  way 
to  allow  some  corporations  to  go  untaxed. 

This  is  government  by  the  caucus  and  convention.  It  is  not 
representative  government.  It  is  not  government  by  the  people. 


3.     WEAKNESSES  OF  THE  CONVENTION  SYSTEM1 

The  character  of  its  membership,  the  complexity  of  the 
system,  the  use  of  proxies,  the  manipulations  of  credentials,  log- 
rolling, and  bribery  combine  to  defeat  the  object  of  the  conven- 
tion —  the  representation  of  the  popular  will. 

We  may  first  study  the  evils  which  surround  the  convention 
as  a  result  of  external  corrupting  influences.  They  vary  widely 
with  the  localities.  They  depend  upon  the  activity  of  the 
"machine"  politician,  and  the  delegates  who  are  to  be  "worked." 
Three  classes  of  delegates  may  be  distinguished  in  conventions : 

1  Meyer,  E.  C.,  Nominating  Systems.  Madison,  Wisconsin,  1902 ;  p.  57, 
et  seq. 


64  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  "fixed"  delegates  who  represent  the  "machine-controlled" 
primaries,  and  who  are  found  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  most 
of  the  conventions  held  in  this  country ;  the  faithful  and  inde- 
pendent delegates  of  a  staunch  and  incorruptible  character, 
who  faithfully  express  the  wishes  of  their  constituents,  and  who 
would  do  so  under  any  conditions ;  and  between  these  extremes, 
a  wavering  class,  which  is  more  or  less  susceptible  to  corrupt  in- 
fluences. In  its  ranks  the  havoc  of  evil  runs  riot.  Its  presence 
makes  the  activity  of  the  professional  politician  profitable 
beyond  the  confines  of  the  primary.  If  he  has  failed  at  the 
latter  another  opportunity  presents  itself  at  the  convention. 
If  the  "machine"  lacks  a  sufficient  number  of  adherents  to  con- 
trol the  nominations  at  which  it  aims,  there  is  still  a  chance  to 
win  over  these  "workable"  delegates  before  the  convention  has 
performed  its  functions. 

The  political  worker  is  aided  in  his  schemes  of  bribery  and 
corruption  by  the  complexity  of  the  convention  system.  The 
multiplicity  of  offices  to  be  filled,  and  the  variety  of  their  grades, 
including  those  of  the  town,  city,  county,  State,  and  Nation, 
each  of  which  requires  its  own  particular  set  of  conventions,  has 
given  rise  to  a  bewildering  intricacy  in  our  nominating  institu- 
tions. In  some  cases  delegates  to  higher  conventions  are  selected 
by  delegates  to  lower  conventions.  All  this  intricacy,  which 
confuses  the  average  voter,  makes  proper  instruction  almost 
impossible,  lessens  the  responsibility  of  the  delegates,  and  eases 
the  way  for  the  professional  politician  who  has  thoroughly  mas- 
tered its  details,  and  enables  him  to  manipulate  his  forces  suc- 
cessfully. 

The  complexity  of  the  system  also  gives  rise  to  a  second  advan- 
tage for  the  "boss"  and  the  ring-leader.  The  numerous  con- 
ventions require  a  number  of  delegates  so  large  that  it  is  difficult 
to  find  a  sufficient  number  of  good  men  who  ar$  willing  to  act. 
Successful  business  men,  or  professional  men,  generally  refuse  to 
act  because  of  lack  of  time,  while  capable  men  of  leisure  fre- 
quently refuse  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  humiliating  and  undig- 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary        65 

nified  to  attend  a  convention  dominated  by  the  "machine,"  and 
-there  find  the  wishes  of  one's  constituents  entirely  ignored. 
Hence  a  class  of  fickle  politicians  who  spend  their  time  in  politics 
for  what  they  can  get  out  of  it,  are  likely  to  find  their  way  into 
the  convention  halls,  where  they  constitute  plastic  material  in 
the  hands  of  the  deputed  convention  workers  of  the  "  machine." 

The  custom  of  sending  proxies  is  also  fraught  with  much  evil 
in  that  it  removes  the  responsibility  of  the  original  delegate  to 
his  constituents.  He  may  yield  his  seat  in  the  convention  to 
his  proxy,  to  escape  disagreeable  business,  or  for  one  pretense  or 
another  allow  him  to  take  his  place.  The  "machine"  may  by 
contrivances  and  intrigues,  aid  in  the  process,  especially  if  the 
proxy  is  already  "fixed."  It  is  a  usual  subterfuge  to  head  a  dele- 
gate ticket  with  the  name  of  a  man  of  known  probity,  and  per- 
haps even  to  fill  out  the  list  with  men  of  this  character,  when  it 
is  certain  that  these  men  will  not  serve,  and  that  unknown  alter- 
nates or  proxies,  subservient  to  the  "bosses,"  will  sit  in  the  con- 
vention. Thus  it  happens  that  the  practice  of  proxyship  plays 
right  into  the  hands  of  the  professional  politicians. 

The  "machine-controlled"  committee  of  credentials  is  also 
a  source  of  common  and  glaring  frauds  in  conventions.  It  is  a 
means  by  which  the  first  class  of  delegates,  the  staunch  and  true 
and  "unworkable"  representatives  of  the  people,  are  prevented 
from  taking  their  seats  in  the  convention  upon  one  pretense  or 
another,  while  the  "machine"  proxies  are  put  in  their  places. 

Similar  grave  results  may  proceed  from  the  practice  of  instruc- 
tion for  second  choice,  for  it  also  presents  the  opportunity  of 
dropping  the  candidate  of  first  choice  upon  one  plea  or  another, 
if  "trading"  or  "logrolling"  accompanied  by  personal  advan- 
tage should  make  this  expedient.  Every  practice  of  this  kind 
which  increases  the  freedom  of  the  delegates,  weakens  the  force 
of  their  instructions,  and  increases  the  possibility  of  "machine" 
control. 

Since  considerable  time  usually  elapses  between  the  selection 
of  the  delegates  and  the  assembly  of  the  convention,  the  chances 


66  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

to  defeat  the  wishes  of  the  people  are  only  too  ample.  The 
pressure  that  is  brought  to  bear  upon  delegates  through  personal 
influences,  political  prestige,  use  of  money,  threat,  and  cunning 
duplicity,  is  tremendous  and  well-nigh  irresistible,  unless  indeed 
the  heart  and  mind  are  firmly  fixed  beforehand.  .  . 

The  wavering  delegate  who  hesitates  to  yield  himself  to  these 
personal  considerations,  is  strengthened  in  his  wrongful  tenden- 
cies, as  already  suggested,  by  the  fact  of  indefinite  or  uncertain 
instructions,  or  their  total  absence.  Even  though  the  voter 
knew  in  each  particular  instance  just  what  candidate  he  wished 
to  vote  for,  and  what  delegate  he  must  support  to  do  so,  he  would 
still  be  involved  in  perplexities  occasioned  by  the  multitude  of 
offices  to  be  filled  in  some  cases  by  each  convention.  He  might 
be  able  to  make  up  a  ticket  of  delegates  who  would  all  be  favor- 
able to  any  one  of  the  candidates  he  desires  to  see  nominated, 
but  such  is  the  variety  of  opinions  that  he  would  find  it  impos- 
sible to  name  a  list  of  delegates  who  would  be  unanimously  fa- 
vorable to  his  choice  for  every  one  of  a  number  of  offices.  To 
this  must  be  added  the  almost  boundless  confusion  which  would 
result  should  he  endeavor  to  instruct  each  delegate  as  to  first 
and  second  choice.  Hence  it  would  be  quite  impossible  for  him 
to  charge  each  delegate  with  definite  instructions  as  to  each 
candidate  to  be  nominated.  Only  very  general  instructions  pro- 
ceeding on  a  party  basis  are  possible.  .  . 

These  inherent  weaknesses  of  the  convention  system  have 
been  the  cause  of  its  decline.  Under  the  influences  of  the  many 
corrupting  forces  which  ever  play  in  politics,  it  has  gradually 
degenerated.  Its  representative  structure  has  been  broken 
down,  and  upon  its  ruins  there  has  been  reared  a  new  and  des- 
potic institution  dominated  by  an  unscrupulous  " machine"  that 
has  forced  its  way  into  party  leadership,  and  falsely  presumes  to 
act  in  the  interests  of  its  members. 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary        67 

4.     NONPARTISAN  MUNICIPAL  PRIMARY  ELECTIONS1 

Municipal  elections  should  turn  on  local  issues.  To  bring 
this  about,  many  states  have  adopted  for  their  cities  schemes 
of  elections  intended  to  remove  the  national  parties  from  the 
choice  of  local  officials.  The  following  is  an  example. 

Sec.  5.  Candidates  to  be  voted  for  at  all  general  municipal 
elections  at  which  a  mayor  and  four  councilmen  are  to  be  elected 
under  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  nominated  by  a  primary 
election,  and  no  other  names  shall  be  placed  upon  the  general 
ballot  except  those  selected  in  the  manner  hereinafter  prescribed. 
The  primary  election  for  such  nomination  shall  be  held  on  the 
second  Monday  preceding  the  general  municipal  election.  The 
judges  of  election  appointed  for  the  general  municipal  election 
shall  be  the  judges  of  the  primary  election,  and  it  shall  be  held 
at  the  same  place,  so  far  as  possible,  and  the  polls  shall  be  opened 
and  closed  at  the  same  hours,  with  the  same  clerks  as  are  re- 
quired for  said  general  municipal  election. 

Any  person  desiring  to  become  a  candidate  for  mayor  or  coun- 
cilman shall,  at  least  ten  days  prior  to  said  primary  election, 
file  with  the  said  clerk  a  statement  of  such  candidacy,  in  sub- 
stantially the  following  form. 
State   of  Iowa,     County,  —  ss. 

I( )  being  first  duly  sworn,  say  that  I  reside 

at street,  city  of county 

of  -  —  State  of  Iowa ;  that  I  am  a  qualified  voter  therein ; 

that  I  am  a  candidate  for  nomination  to  the  office  of  (mayor  or 
councilman)  to  be  voted  upon  at  the  primary  election  to  be  held 

in  the Monday  of 19  .. 

and  I  hereby  request  that  my  name  be  printed  upon  the  official 
primary  ballot  for  nomination  by  such  primary  election  for  such 
office. 

(Signed) 

Subscribed  and  sworn  to  (or  affirmed)  before  me  by 

on  this day  of 19  .. 

(Signed). 
1  Laws  of  Iowa,  Chap.  48 ;  1907  (excerpt). 


68  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

and  shall  at  the  same  time  file  therewith  the  petition  of  at  least 
twenty-five  qualified  voters  requesting  such  candidacy.  Each 
petition  shall  be  verified  by  one  or  more  persons  as  to  the  quali- 
fications and  residence,  with  street  number,  of  each  of  the  persons 
so  signing  the  said  petition,  and  the  said  petition  shall  be  in  sub- 
stantially the  following  form : 

PETITION  ACCOMPANYING  NOMINATION   STATEMENT 

The  undersigned,  duly  qualified  electors  of  the  city  of  .... 
.  .  .  .,  and  residing  at  the  places  set  opposite  our  respective 
names  hereto,  do  hereby  request  that  the  name  of  (name  of  candi- 
date) be  placed  on  the  ballot  as  a  candidate  for  nomination  for 
(name  of  office)  at  the  primary  election  to  be  held  in  such  city  on 

the Monday    of ,    19 

We  further  state  that  we  know  him  to  be  a  qualified  elector  of 
said  city  and  a  man  of  good  moral  character  and  qualified  in  our 
judgment  for  the  duties  of  such  office. 


NAMES  OF  QUALIFIED  ELECTORS 

NUMBER 

STREETS 

Immediately  upon  the  expiration  of  the  time  of  filing  the  state- 
ments and  petitions  for  candidacies,  the  said  city  clerk  shall  cause 
to  be  published  for  three  successive  days  in  all  the  daily  news- 
papers in  the  city,  in  proper  form,  the  names  of  the  persons  as 
they  are  to  appear  upon  the  primary  ballots,  and  if  there  be  no 
daily  newspaper,  then  in  two  issues  of  any  other  newspapers  that 
may  be  published  in  said  city ;  and  the  said  clerk  shall  thereupon 
cause  the  primary  ballots  to  be  printed,  authenticated  with  a 
facsimile  of  his  signature.  Upon  the  said  ballot  the  names  of 
the  candidates  for  mayor,  arranged  alphabetically,  shall  first 
be  placed,  with  a  square  at  the  left  of  each  name,  and  immedi- 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary        69 

ately  below  the  words,  "Vote  for  one."  Following  these  names, 
likewise  arranged  in  alphabetical  order,  shall  appear  the  names 
of  the  candidates  for  councilmen,  with  a  square  at  the  left  of 
each  name  and  below  the  names  of  such  candidates  shall  appear 
the  words,  "  Vote  for  four."  The  ballots  shall  be  printed  upon 
plain,  substantial  white  paper,  and  shall  be  headed : 

CANDIDATES   FOR  NOMINATION  FOR   MAYOR 

AND   COUNCILMEN  OF CITY 

AT  THE  PRIMARY  ELECTION 

but  shall  have  no  party  designation  or  mark  whatever.  The 
ballots  shall  be  in  substantially  the  following  form : 

(Place  a  cross  in  the  square  preceding  the  names  of  the  parties 
you  favor  as  candidates  for  the  respective  positions.) 

OFFICIAL  PRIMARY  BALLOT 

CANDIDATE  FOR  NOMINATION  FOR  MAYOR 

AND   COUNCILMEN  OF    ....    CITY  AT  THE 

PRIMARY  ELECTION 

For  Mayor 

D  (Name  of  Candidate.) 
(Vote  for  one.) 

For  Councilman 
D  (Name  of  Candidate.) 
(Vote  for  four.) 

Official  ballot  attest : 
(Signature) 


City  Clerk. 

Having  caused  said  ballots  to  be  printed,  the  said  city  clerk 
shall  cause  to  be  delivered  at  each  polling  place  a  number  of  said 
ballots  equal  to  twice  the  number  of  votes  cast  in  such  polling 
precinct  at  the  last  general  municipal  election  for  mayor.  The 


70  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

persons  who  are  qualified  to  vote  at  the  general  municipal  elec- 
tion shall  be  qualified  to  vote  at  such  primary  election,  and  chal- 
lenges can  be  made  by  not  more  than  two  persons,  to  be  ap- 
pointed at  the  time  of  opening  the  polls  by  the  judges  of  election ; 
and  the  law  applicable  to  challenges  at  a  general  municipal  elec- 
tion shall  be  applicable  to  challenges  made  at  such  primary  elec- 
tion. Judges  of  election  shall,  immediately  upon  the  closing  of 
the  polls,  count  the  ballots  and  ascertain  the  number  of  votes 
cast  in  such  precinct  for  each  of  the  candidates,  and  make  re- 
turn thereof  to  the  city  clerk,  upon  proper  blanks  to  be  furnished 
by  the  said  clerk,  within  six  hours  of  the  closing  of  the  polls.  On 
the  day  following  the  said  primary  election  the  said  city  clerk 
shall  canvass  said  returns  so  received  from  all  the  polling  pre- 
cincts, and  shall  make  and  publish  in  all  the  newspapers  of  said 
city  at  least  once,  the  result  thereof.  Said  canvass  by  the  city 
clerk  shall  be  publicly  made.  The  two  candidates  receiving  the 
highest  number  of  votes  for  mayor  shall  be  the  candidates  and 
the  only  candidates  whose  names  shall  be  placed  upon  the  ballot 
for  mayor  at  the  next  succeeding  general  municipal  election, 
and  the  eight  candidates  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes 
for  councilman,  or  all  such  candidates  if  less  than  eight,  shall  be 
the  candidates  and  the  only  candidates  whose  names  shall  be 
placed  upon  the  ballot  for  councilman  at  such  municipal  election. 
All  electors  of  cities  under  this  act  who  by  the  laws  governing 
cities  of  the  first  class  and  cities  acting  under  special  charter 
would  be  entitled  to  vote  for  the  election  of  officers  at  any  gen- 
eral municipal  election  in  such  cities,  shall  be  qualified  to  vote 
at  all  elections  under  this  act;  and  the  ballot  at  such  general 
municipal  election  shall  be  in  the  same  general  form  as  for  such 
primary  election,  so  far  as  applicable,  and  in  all  elections  in  such 
city  the  election  precincts,  voting  places,  methods  of  conducting 
election,  canvassing  the  votes  and  announcing  the  results,  shall 
be  the  same  as  by  law  provided  for  election  of  officers  in  such 
cities,  so  far  as  the  same  are  applicable  and  not  inconsistent  with 
the  provisions  of  this  act. 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary        71 

5.     LEGISLATION     NEEDED    TO    SUPPLEMENT    PRIMARY    ELECTION 

LAWS  1 

Though  the  Primary  Election  System  has  made  rapid  strides 
in  replacing  the  convention,  there  are  still  many  points  upon 
which  even  its  best  friends  are  disappointed  in  its  working. 
Some  of  the  improvements  most  often  urged  are  here  discussed. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  direct  primary  system  will 
continue  to  progress,  supplanting  the  convention  method,  until 
ultimately  it  covers  the  whole  group  of  states.  The  direct  pri- 
mary system  promises  popular  control  of  the  nominating  machin- 
ery, and  the  overthrow  and  expulsion  of  the  party  boss.  It 
promises  to  drive  out  oligarchy  or  autocracy,  and  to  introduce 
democracy  into  the  party  system.  Upon  this  promise  a  desperate 
political  constituency  relies.  Whether  all  the  results  depicted 
by  the  advocates  of  the  system  will  actually  follow,  there  may 
be  serious  doubt.  But  its  chief  opponents  have  been  men  who 
failed  to  take  a  broad  view  of  the  political  field,  and  their  mo- 
tives and  their  arguments  have  not  been  taken  seriously  by  the 
people.  Their  fear  that  party  organization  might  be  destroyed 
has  been  construed  as  apprehension  that  certain  holders  of  power 
might  be  displaced  under  the  new  system.  Monstrous  abuses 
have  arisen  under  the  convention  system  and  whether  or  not 
the  direct  primary  can  perform  all  that  its  advocates  promise, 
there  can  be  little  question  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
are  disposed  to  give  it  a  fair  trial  and  will  undertake  the  experi- 
ment without  much  further  delay. 

A  more  serious  problem  is  presented  by  the  relation  between 
the  direct  primary  and  the  system  of  nomination  by  petition 
only.  In  elections  where  it  is  desirable  to  separate  as  far  as 
possible  national  and  local  issues,  there  are  reasons  why  the  direct 
primary  may  not  be  the  most  practicable  system.  No  matter 

1  Merriam,  C.  E.,  Primary  Elections.  University  of  Chicago  Press,  1908 ; 
pp.  163-176. 


72  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

what  the  nominating  system  may  be,  if  it  is  a  party  system,  par- 
tisan politics  are  thrust  upon  the  electorate  and  argument  upon 
national  issues  is  almost  inevitable.  Party  primaries  and  non- 
partisan  elections  do  not  harmonize,  and  are,  in  fact,  mutually 
exclusive.  The  direct  primary  seems,  therefore,  to  emphasize 
the  national  party  in  local  politics  and  the  continuance  of  the 
well-known  evils  that  have  heretofore  accompanied  that  system 
in  our  American  cities. 

This  was  well  stated  by  Mr.  Walter  Fisher  when  he  declared, 
in  an  address  before  the  Chicago  Charter  Convention  in  1907 : 

You  cannot,  by  any  possibility,  successfully  operate  a  party 
which  is  organized  on  national  and  state  lines,  and  fit  that  party 
to  a  municipal  election.  It  never  has  been  done,  and  it  never 
will  be'done.  The  lines  of  cleavage  of  the  different  parties  are  dif- 
ferent. The  lines  upon  which  they  are  agreed  in  national  and 
state  elections  are  not  the  lines  governing  the  municipal  election. 

Nomination  by  petition  only  would  render  party  choices,  as 
such,  impossible.  It  would  be  possible,  however,  for  a  party  to 
hold  an  informal  convention,  nominate  its  candidates,  and  place 
them  upon  the  ballot  by  the  petition  process.  But  the  party 
circle,  column,  and  designation  would  no  longer  appear  upon  the 
ballot.  The  nominees  could  have  only  such  advantages  as  the 
prestige  of  choice  by  party  leaders  might  carry  with  it,  and  al- 
legiance of  the  mass  of  the  party  voters  would  not  be  so  confi- 
dently demanded  or  so  easily  secured. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  legal  protection  of  the  nominating  pro- 
cess would  be  totally  destroyed,  and,  if  nominations  actually 
were  made  by  parties,  there  would  be  no  legal  guaranty  of  an 
orderly  process.  If  it  should  turn  out  that  nominations  were 
actually  made  by  a  party  boss,  the  net  result  would  be  the  de- 
struction of  the  safeguards  that  have  been  built  up  by  forty 
years  of  primary  legislation.  So  far  as  cities  are  concerned,  then, 
the  question  involved  is  whether  the  greater  advantage  lies  with 
the  direct  primary  or  with  the  elimination  of  legally  regulated 
party  nominations. 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary         73 

A  primary  law  should  always  leave  the  city  the  right  to  choose 
either  the  direct  nominating  system  or  nomination  by  petition, 
and  if  the  latter  is  adopted  the  plan  of  permitting  a  preliminary 
election  for  the  purpose  of  choosing  two  candidates  for  each 
office  is  worthy  of  careful  trial.  In  the  choice  of  educational 
and  judicial  officers,  nomination  by  petition  only  presents  pos- 
sibilities worthy  of  very  serious  consideration,  and  in  the  case  of 
school  officers  is  already  in  use  in  several  places. 

A  study  of  primary  election  legislation  shows  that  the  desired 
results  cannot  be  obtained  until  other  and  important  political 
changes  have  been  made.  Unless  primary  laws  are  accompanied 
or  followed  by  other  developments  of  the  political  situation, 
comparatively  little  will  result  from  the  movement.  No  friend 
of  direct  nomination  should  indulge  the  pleasant  dream  that  the 
adoption  of  a  law  providing  for  such  a  system  will,  of  itself,  act 
as  a  cure  for  all  the  present-day  party  evils.  Disillusionment 
and  discouragement  are  certain  to  follow  in  the  wake  of  any  cam- 
paign conducted  on  such  a  theory.  It  is  necessary  to  understand 
that  the  political  conditions  are  far  too  serious  and  far  too  com- 
plicated to  be  cured  by  so  simple  a  specific. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  direct  nominating 
system  will  achieve  its  full  results  until  the  number  of  elective 
officers  is  materially  reduced.  Where  thirty  or  forty  offices  are 
to  be  filled  at  one  primary,  it  is  not  probable  that  an  intelligent 
choice  will  be  made  from  the  great  number  of  candidates  pre- 
sented. The  variety  of  qualifications  required  for  the  several 
offices,  the  multiplicity  of  candidates  clamoring  for  recognition, 
the  obscurity  of  many  of  these  candidates,  the  possibility  of 
" deals"  and  "slates,"  make  the  likelihood  of  proper  selection 
somewhat  remote.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  result  will  be  any 
worse  than  that  obtained  under  the  convention  system,  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  not  likely  to  be  very  much  better  in  the  case 
of  the  minor  offices. 

The  reduction  of  the  number  of  elective  offices  is  not  undemo- 
cratic, as  might  perhaps  be  charged,  but  is,  on  the  contrary,  cal- 


74  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

culated  to  give  the  people  more  complete  control  over  their  own 
government.  To  provide  for  popular  choice  of  a  large  number  of 
officers  does  not  increase,  but,  quite  the  contrary,  diminishes 
their  power.  As  was  said  in  the  Federalist : 

The  countenance  of  the  government  may  become  more  demo- 
cratic ;  but  the  soul  that  animates  it  will  be  more  oligarchic. 
The  machine  will  be  enlarged,  but  the  fewer,  and  often  the  more 
secret,  will  be  the  springs  by  which  its  motions  are  directed. 

A  great  array  of  elective  public  offices  means  control  by  the 
few  rather  than  by  the  many.  Amenability  to  popular  control 
will  be  better  secured  by  reducing  the  number  of  offices,  so  that 
the  requirements  of  the  candidates  for  each  such  position  may 
be  carefully  scrutinized,  and  the  most  intelligent  choice  be  made. 

This  simplification  of  the  machinery  of  government  may  most 
easily  be  made  by  eliminating  administrative  offices  from  the 
elective  list.  There  can  be  no  good  reason  why  such  officers  as 
auditor,  engineer,  and  surveyor,  should  be  elective.  An  auditor 
must  be  accurate  and  honest,  and  there  is  no  such  thing  as  Re- 
publican auditing  or  Democratic  auditing.  Nor  is  there  a  Re- 
publican way,  or  a  Democratic  way,  or  a  Prohibitionist  way  of 
administering  the  office  of  engineer.  Certainly  there  can  be  no 
form  of  surveying  that  could  be  characterized  as  Socialistic  or 
Democratic  or  Republican. 

The  true  principle  is  that  the  people  should  choose  all  officers 
concerned  with  the  formulation  of  public  policies.  They  need 
not  choose  men  engaged  in  the  carrying  out  of  policies.  Policy- 
framing  or  legislation  is  a  matter  upon  which  there  may  be  dif- 
ferences of  opinion,  and  men  intrusted  with  the  work  of  drawing 
up  such  plans  must  be  elected  by,  and  be  immediately  respon- 
sible to,  the  people.  Regarding  the  execution  of  policies  once 
enacted  into  law,  there  is  less  room  for  difference  of  opinion. 
The  making  of  law  is  partisan,  but  the  enforcement  of  law  should 
be  non-partisan.  Laws  should  not  be  administered  in  a  partisan 
way,  but  efficiently  and  justly.  Administration  requires  tech- 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary         75 

nical  skill,  and  partisanship  is  destructive  to  its  best 
development. 

If  any  administrative  offices  are  to  be  selected  by  popular 
vote,  the  number  should  be  confined  to  the  chief  executive  offi- 
cers, such  as  the  mayor  and  the  governor.  If  these  officers  are 
chosen  by  the  people  and  given  the  duty  of  selecting  and  super- 
vising other  public  servants  on  the  administrative  staff,  the  re- 
sult is  certain  to  be  a  higher  degree  of  popular  control  than  is 
now  generally  secured.  This  principle  has  been  established  in 
the  federal  government  from  the  beginning,  is  now  being  adopted 
in  our  municipal  governments,  and  few  new  elective  offices  are 
being  provided  in  state  and  county  government.  We  are  com- 
ing to  realize  that  what  is  needed  is  popular  control  over  policies, 
with  non-partisan,  skilled,  and  permanent  administration  of 
these  policies.  While  in  London  in  1907, 1  was  greatly  interested 
to  see  that,  although  the  Moderate  party  in  the  London  County 
Council  had  just  won  a  sweeping  victory,  which  placed  it  in 
power  for  the  first  time  in  sixteen  years,  no  changes  were  made 
in  the  administration.  The  offices  and  committees  of  the  Coun- 
cil were  reorganized  to  give  the  victorious  party  the  majority 
necessary  to  execute  its  policies,  but  the  public  servants  whose 
duty  it  is  to  execute  the  policy  of  the  Council  remained  un- 
disturbed. 

Such  a  change  may  be  denounced  as  undemocratic  in  spirit 
and  tendency,  but  on  second  thought  it  will  be  seen  that  instead 
of  weakening  popular  control  over  government  the  result  will  be 
to  strengthen  that  control.  A  system  that  imposes  upon  the 
electorate  the  choice  of  a  mass  of  officials  strengthens  the  hands 
of  partisan  or  private  interests  at  the  expense  of  the  public. 
With  a  smaller  number  of  elective  officers,  the  results  obtained 
under  the  direct  primary  system  would  be  far  more  satisfactory 
than  they  can  be  under  existing  conditions.  Public  attention 
could  be  focused  upon  a  few  offices  and  a  few  candidates  with 
better  prospects  than  at  present  for  the  elimination  of  the  unde- 
sirable and  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  Until  this  is  brought 


j6  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

about,  the  success  of  the  direct  nominating  system  must  be  seri- 
ously menaced. 

Another  essential  change  is  the  return  to  the  original  form  of 
the  Australian  ballot.  The  party  emblem,  the  party  circle,  and 
the  party  column  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Australian  ballot, 
and  were  engrafted  on  the  system  by  American  legislatures.  In 
adopting  the  system,  secrecy  of  the  ballot  was  secured,  but  the 
party  obtained  the  advantage  of  arranging  party  candidates  in 
columns  and  permitting  the  voter  to  select  a  list  of  candidates 
by  marking  in  the  party  circle.  This  mechanical  arrangement 
places  a  premium  upon  undiscriminating  voting,  and  often  re- 
sults in  the  election  of  unworthy  and  unfit  candidates  by  sheer 
advantage  of  position  upon  the  ballot.  If  the  head  of  the  ticket 
is  elected,  the  others  are  likely  to  be  carried  along  with  the  leader, 
regardless  of  their  own  merits.  Fortunately  this  plan  has  not 
been  applied  to  the  conduct  of  nominating  elections,  where  vot- 
ing an  organization  slate  with  one  mark  might  have  worked  great 
damage ;  but  the  fact  that  this  practice  prevails  in  the  regular 
elections  throws  its  shadow  back  over  the  primaries.  The 
knowledge  that  candidates,  when  nominated,  will  be  placed  under 
the  protection  of  the  emblem  or  the  circle  makes  the  party,  es- 
pecially in  districts  where  it  is  strongly  in  the  majority,  less  care- 
ful in  its  choice  of  candidates  than  would  otherwise  be  the  case. 
It  is  only  human  nature  to  be  less  studious  of  the  public  wishes 
in  a  situation  where  a  nomination  is  equivalent  to  an  election, 
and  where  defeat  even  of  the  unworthy  is  a  remote  possibility. 
Ballot  reform  is,  therefore,  a  necessary  accompaniment  of  pri- 
mary reform.  The  ballot  in  the  regular  election  should  be  made 
up  in  the  same  form  as  the  ballot  in  the  primary  election,  with 
the  party  designation  placed  after  the  name  of  the  candidate. 

Another  requisite  to  the  complete  success  of  the  direct  nomi- 
nating plan  is  the  further  extension  and  enforcement  of  the  merit 
system.  As  long  as  an  army  of  officials  can  be  thrown  into  the 
field  in  support  of  a  particular  "slate,"  it  will  be  difficult  for  the 
candidate,  not  so  supported,  to  succeed.  The  odds  are  too 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary        77 

greatly  in  favor  of  the  regular  army  against  the  unorganized  and 
undisciplined  volunteers.  Occasionally  victory  may  perch  on 
the  banners  of  the  straggling  group  of  reformers  and  "antis," 
but  habitually  will  rest  upon  the  side  of  the  well-disciplined  army 
of  office-holders.  The  honest  and  intelligent  application  of  the 
merit  principle  to  administrative  appointments  reduces  the  num- 
ber of  workers  under  the  control  of  a  faction,  and  makes  the  sup- 
port of  the  " slate"  far  less  formidable.  If  the  group  in  power 
centers  around  some  principle  or  policy,  it  will  continue  to  be 
powerful  and  effective  in  the  primaries,  even  under  the  merit 
system ;  but  if  the  chief  element  of  cohesion  was  public  office,  it 
will  be  far  less  vigorous  than  before.  Patronage  is  not  only 
the  force  that  holds  an  organization  together,  but  it  is  the  strong- 
est single  element,  and  no  practical  politician  is  ever  guilty  of 
despising  the  power  of  appointing  men  to,  and  removing  them 
from,  office.  There  are,  of  course,  many  exceptions,  but  the 
general  practice  is  for  the  appointing  power  to  control  the  politi- 
cal activity  of  the  appointee.  When  the  office  is  obtained  by 
merit,  however,  and  not  by  favor,  this  sense  of  obligation  on  the 
part  of  the  officer  and  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  party  ruler 
ceases.  Hence  the  mobilization  of  an  army  for  effective 
use  in  a  primary  campaign  becomes  far  more  difficult,  and  the 
opportunities  for  success  on  the  part  of  the  opposition  corre- 
spondingly greater.  To  the  extent  that  the  merit  system  is  not 
rigidly  carried  out,  the  effects,  just  indicated,  do  not  follow.  In 
any  event,  it  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  civil  service  reform  is  a 
panacea.  It  is  merely  a  palliative.  It  will  materially  help,  but 
cannot  be  relied  upon  to  accomplish  a  complete  cure  for  our  politi- 
cal ills.  The  merit  system  merely  abolishes  the  feudal  tenure 
under  which  many  officers  now  hold,  and  the  obligations  of  ser- 
vice incident  to  that  relationship.  It  will  remove  one  handicap 
to  an  even  race  between  candidates  for  a  nomination. 

It  is  a  serious  question  whether  public  appropriation  should 
not  be  made  to  defray  a  part  of  the  expenses  of  candidates  in 
primaries.  Already  in  most  states  all  of  the  cost  of  the  primary 


78  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

election  itself  is  paid  from  the  public  treasury.  The  payment  of 
election  judges,  the  printing  and  distribution  of  ballots  and 
booths,  the  rent  of  polling-places,  and  other  similar  expenditures 
incident  to  holding  a  primary  are  usually  met  from  the  public 
funds,  although  at  the  outset  all  such  charges  were  covered  by 
party  assessments  upon  candidates.  The  government  might 
also  undertake  to  place  in  the  hands  of  every  voter  in  the  given 
district  a  brief  statement  regarding  the  record  and  platform  of 
each  candidate.  Such  statements,  prepared  by  the  candidates' 
friends,  or  critics,  might  be  bound  together  and  sent  to  every 
member  of  the  party  in  the  constituency  interested.  The  ex- 
pense would  not  be  great,  while  the  educational  value  to  the 
public  would  warrant  an  appropriation  for  the  purpose.  At  any 
rate,  the  government  might  defray  the  cost  of  distributing  such 
material.  It  might  also  be  possible  to  allow  candidates  the 
use  of  certain  public  buildings,  such  as  schoolhouses,  or  perhaps 
to  secure  other  meeting-places  and  permit  their  use  by  the  several 
contestants.  There  is  serious  danger  that  under  the  present 
system  the  man  without  large  means  may  find  it  almost  impossi- 
ble to  enter  the  primary  lists,  or  that  he  may  incur  obligations  of 
a  character  that  may  interfere  with  his  usefulness  to  the  public. 
The  candidate  should  not  be  subjected  to  the  temptation  of 
mortgaging  his  future  political  conduct  for  the  sake  of  securing 
the  necessary  campaign  fund. 

After  all  such  remedies  have  been  considered,  it  is  clear  that 
no  readjustment  of  the  political  machinery  can  be  relied  upon  to 
produce  ideal  political  conditions.  It  is  a  common  American 
fallacy  to  conclude  that  when  a  constitutional  amendment,  or  a 
statute,  or  a  charter,  is  secured  the  victory  has  been  won  and 
that  the  patriotic  citizen  may  go  back  to  the  neglected  plow. 
It  is  easier  to  secure  ten  men  to  fight  desperately  for  good  legis- 
lation than  one  who  will  fight  steadily  and  consistently  for  effi- 
cient administration.  Every  student  of  politics  knows,  how- 
ever, that  there  is  no  automatic  device  that  will  secure  smoothly 
running  self-government  while  the  people  sleep.  Perpetual  mo- 


The  Convention  and  the  Direct  Primary        79 

tion  and  automatic  democracy  are  equally  visionary  and  im- 
possible. The  governor  gauges  the  pressure  of  public  interest 
and  regulates  his  conduct  accordingly.  The  level  of  politics  is 
in  the  long  run  the  level  of  public  interest  in  men  and  affairs 
political.  Under  any  system  the  largest  group  of  interested 
and  active  citizens  will  determine  public  policies,  and  will  select 
the  persons  to  formulate  and  administer  them.  The  unin- 
terested, or  the  spasmodically  interested,  the  inactive  and  the 
irregularly  active,  will  be  the  governed,  not  the  governors. 

Neither  primary  legislation  nor  any  other  type  of  legislation 
can  change  this  situation.  We  may  make  it  easier  for  the  people 
to  express  their  will ;  we  may  simplify  the  government  and  ren- 
der it  more  clearly  and  directly  responsible,  but  this  alone  will 
not  insure  the  desired  result.  We  may  remove  obstructions 
and  hindrances  and  facilitate  popular  control,  but  we  cannot  do 
more. 

The  direct  primary  system  is,  therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  an 
opportunity,  not  as  a  result.  It  signifies  the  opening  of  a  broad 
avenue  of  approach  to  democracy  in  party  affairs,  but  not  the 
attainment  of  the  goal. 


IV.    THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  AND  THE  ELECTION  OF  THE 

PRESIDENT 

I.    THE  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  1 

The  most  spectacular  feature  of  our  party  life  is  undoubtedly 
the  campaign  for  the  election  of  the  President.  Its  coming 
is  looked  forward  to  by  all  classes  of  our  people,  for  upon  its 
outcome  depends  not  only  who  shall  be  our  national  executive, 
but  to  a  great  extent  what  shall  be  our  national  policy  for 
the  next  four  years.  Who  form  the  national  convention  which 

to  nominate  the  party  candidate  for  President,  where  they 
are  to  meet,  and  how  they  act,  become  therefore  questions  of 
unusual  popular  interest. 

As  the  first  act  in  the  campaign  the  chairman  of  the  National 
Committee  of  his  party,  calls  the  Committee  to  meet  for  the 
purpose  of  appointing  a  time  and  place  for  holding  the  National 
Convention. 

The  National  Committee  will  usually  meet  in  Washington, 
D.C.  Washington  is  the  political  capital  of  the  country,  the 
political  headquarters,  especially  while  Congress  is  in  session. 
Many  members  of  the  National  Committee  are  members  of  Con- 
gress, and  the  national  capital  is,  therefore,  the  most  convenient 
place  for  the  Committee  to  meet.  The  Democratic  Committee 
usually  meets  on  the  22d  of  February  of  a  presidential  year,  the 
Republican  Committee  in  January  or  December.  While  the  Re- 
publicans have  no  fixed  time  for  the  meeting  of  their  Committee, 
custom  has  made  it  at  least  six  months  before  the  date  to  be  set 
for  the  convention.  The  chief  purpose  of  this  meeting  is  to  issue 
the  call  for  the  National  Nominating  Convention.  .  . 

1Woodburn,  J.  A.,  Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the  United 
States.  Putnams,  New  York,  1906 ;  pp.  152— 162. 

80 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  8 1 

A  matter  of  temporary  importance,  and  the  one  which  ex- 
cites the  greatest  public  interest  and  attention  at  this  meeting 
of  the  Committee,  is  the  choice  of  a  convention  city.     Delega- 
tions from  rival  cities  appear  before  the  Committee.     In  the 
early  years  of  the  century  Baltimore  had  the  distinction  of  being 
known  as  the  'Convention  City.'     It  was  easy  of  access,  half- 
way between  the  North  and  the  South,  and  it  was  supposed  not 
to  be  decisively  permeated  with  either  Northern  or  Southern  in- 
fluence.    In  later  years  Chicago  has  more  frequently  than  any 
other  city  entertained  the  National  Conventions.     In  its  location 
and  from  its  railroad  facilities  Chicago  is  more  easily  and  fairly 
accessible  from  all  parts  of  the  country.     The  size  of  the  city, 
its  large  auditoriums,  and  its  hotel  accommodations  enable  it  to 
entertain  the  immense  crowds  of  delegates  and  visitors  that  as- 
semble at  these  quadrennial  conventions.     It  is  quite  desirable, 
if  not  almost  essential,  that  the  convention  city  should  be  a  city 
of  the  first  class,  affording  these  conveniences  and  facilities. 
But  it  is  not  always  from  these  considerations  that  the  National 
Committee  chooses  the  place  for  the  Convention.     It  may  be 
deemed  good  politics,  as  a  means  of  influencing  the  political 
opinion  of  a  community,  to  have  the  Convention  meet  in  a  par- 
ticular section  of  the  country ;  it  may  be  claimed  that  to  choose 
Indianapolis  would  be  to  secure  for  the  party  the  electoral  vote 
of  Indiana,  or  to  choose  Kansas  City  would  make  sure  of  the 
votes  of  Kansas  and  Nebraska.     It  is  not  evident  that  the  Con- 
vention carries  with  it  such  influence  in  the  election.     The  friends 
of  a  particular  candidate  in  control  of  the  Committee  may  deem 
it  inadvisable  in  the  interest  of  their  candidate  to  have  the  Con- 
vention held,  for  instance,  in  New  York,  or  Philadelphia,  where, 
presumably,  the  influence  locally  of  the  press  and  party  would 
be  adverse;    and,  again,  a  responsible  commercial  delegation 
from  a  city  may  offer  to  the  Committee  a  money  donation  to 
the  campaign  fund  of  the  party,  and  offer  to  pay  all  the  expenses 
of  the  Convention  in  exchange  for  the  choice  of  their  city.     A 
committee  of  fifty  or  sixty  business  men  from  a  city  seeking  the 

G 


82  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Convention  make  a  trip  to  Washington,  and  these,  combined 
with  the  Senators  and  Representatives  of  that  section  of  the 
country,  importune  the  National  Committee  and  present  the 
1  claims'  of  their  city.  This  is  generally  done  to  bring  visitors 
and  money  to  the  city,  and  the  effort  to  'land'  the  Convention 
is  made  by  local  business  men  and  hotel  interests  regardless  of 
politics.  In  1900,  Philadelphia  promised  to  the  Republican 
National  Committee  a  donation  of  $100,000  to  bring  the  Con- 
vention to  that  city,  and  Kansas  City  offered  $50,000  and  the 
expenses  of  the  Convention  to  the  Democratic  Committee.  The 
money  offer  is  often  a  decisive  factor  in  the  choice  of  the  Com- 
mittee. .  . 

The  number  of  delegates  from  the  States  to  the  National 
Convention  is  as  follows :  Fg^^^eggj,e^-gt-largeiioT!\  each_state, 
—  that  is,  double  the  number  of  United  States  Senators  to  which 
the  State  is  entitled.  If  the  State  has  a  Congressman-at-large 
in  the  Lower  House,  two  more  delegates-at-large  are  added: 
Two  delegates  are  allotted  to  each  congressional  district  of  the  State: 
Thus  each  State  has  twice  as  many  delegates  as  it  has  Senators 
and  Representatives  in  Congress,  or  twice  as  many  as  its 
electoral  vote.  Delaware  has  three  electoral  votes,  one 
for  each  of  its  Senators  and  one  for  its  Representative  in  Con- 
gress. New  York  has  thirty-six  electoral  votes,  two  for  its 
Senators  and  thirty-four  for  its  Representatives.  In  the 
National  Conventions  Delaware  has  six  delegates  and  New 
York  seventy-two.  Before  1852  the  numbers  in  the  National 
Conventions  were  the  same  as  in  the  Electoral  College,  one  dele- 
gate for  each  elector.  For  twenty  years  after  1852,  in  the  Demo- 
cratic Convention,  the  numbers  were  increased  to  two  delegates 
for  each  elector,  but  each  delegate  had  only  half  a  vote.  In 
1872  the  Democratic  Convention  gave  each  delegate  a  whole 
vote,  while  the  number  of  delegates  remained  double  that  of  the 
electors.  The  Republicans  adopted  this  rule  of  membership  in 
1860,  and  it  has  been  the  rule  of  both  parties  since  1872.  In 
addition  to  the  State  delegates,  two  delegates  have  usually  been 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  83 

allotted  to  each  of  the  Territories.  This  helps  to  develop  party 
feeling  and  party  strength  in  the  Territories  in  anticipation  of 
their  coming  into  the  Union  as  States.  In  the  Democratic  Con- 
vention of  1896,  in  accordance  with  a  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Credentials,  the  Territorial  representation  was  increased  from 
two  to  six  delegates  for  each  Territory,  and  the  official  call 
of  the  National  Republican  Committee  in  1900  recommended 
a  similar  increase  from  the  Territories  for  that  party.  In  the 
Republican  Convention  the  Territorial  delegates  vote  as  other 
delegates,  but  in  the  Democratic  Convention  the  Territorial 
delegates  have  no  votes,  —  a  fact  which  again  indicates  the  dis- 
position of  the  Democratic  party  to  govern,  or  to  choose  its 
rulers  and  its  candidates,  by  the  action  of  States.  The  Republi- 
can Committee  in  its  call  recommended  that  the  Territories  of 
Arizona,  Indian  Territory,  New  Mexico,  and  Oklahoma  (pro- 
spective States),  each  elect  six  delegates  and  that  Alaska  elect 
four  delegates,  leaving  the  District  of  Columbia  still  only  two, 
and  the  admission  of  these  additional  delegates  was  recommended 
to  the  Convention.  The  Convention  of  1900  acted  on  the  rec- 
ommendation and  admitted  six  delegates  each  from  Arizona, 
New  Mexico,  Oklahoma,  and  Indian  Territory,  and  two  each 
from  Alaska,  District  of  Columbia,  and  Hawaii.  With  this  in- 
crease the  National  Republican  Convention  consists  of  894  State 
delegates  (twice  447,  the  vote  of  the  Electoral  College)  and  thirty 
Territorial  delegates,  making  a  Convention  membership  of  924 
in  all.  In  addition  to  the  delegates  an  equal  number  of  alter- 
nates are  elected  to  act  in  case  of  the  absence  of  the  delegates. 
The  alternates  are  elected  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  delegates;  they  sit  in  the  Convention  immediately 
behind  the  delegates.  .  . 

The  district  plan  of  electing  the  delegates  is  comparatively 
recent.  Formerly,  in  both  parties,  the  delegates  for  the  whole 
State  were  appointed  by  the  general  State  convention,  and  in 
some  parts  of  the  country,  especially  in  New  York  and  the  East- 
ern States,  this  is  still  the  custom  in  the  Democratic  party. 


84  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

State  appointment  recognizes  the  delegation  as  representing  the 
State,  and  it  gives  greater  power  and  prestige  to  the  State  as 
such,  enables  it  to  act  as  a  unit,  and  this  may  account  for  the 
greater  favor  with  which  it  has  met  in  the  Democratic  party,  as 
that  is  the  party  which  tends  more  to  advocate  and  defend  the 
powers  and  rights  of  the  States.  But  it  is  less  popular  than  the 
district  plan,  It  enables  a  shrewd  politician  in  control  of  the 
party  machinery  of  his  State,  and  who  is  thereby  able  to  manip- 
ulate the  State  convention  of  his  party,  to  gain  larger  influence 
and  power.  A  'snap  judgment'  may  be  more  easily  taken  as 
against  the  wishes  of  the  masses  of  the  party.  These  have  a 
better  chance  to  exert  their  influence  in  smaller  district 
conventions. 

The  delegates  to  the  National  Conventions  are  usually  ac- 
tive party  men,  politicians  in  their  respective  districts  who  give 
a  good  deal  of  time  and  attention  to  politics.  They  are  fre- 
quently able  and  astute  managers,  not  office-seekers  always, 
though  often  so,  but  men  whose  services  to  the  party  entitle 
them  to  some  distinction  and  recognition.  The  delegates-at- 
large  are  usually  men  of  State  or  national  reputation,  the  party 
leaders  of  the  State,  the  United  States  Senators,  or  men  whose 
renown  or  power  as  speakers  and  managers  will  give  the  delega- 
tion weight  and  influence  in  the  Convention. 

Of  recent  years  much  criticism  has  arisen  on  account  of  the 
presence  in  the  National  Convention  of  the  party  of  the  Admin- 
istration, of  Federal  office-holders.  It  is  alleged  that  these  Fed- 
eral officers  exercise  an  undue  influence  in  controlling  political 
action  and  in  thus  retaining  in  power  their  party  chieftain,  the 
dispenser  of  their  salaries  and  patronage.  .  . 

The  question  has  been  raised  in  late  years,  and  it  is  especially 
urged  upon  the  Republican  organization,  whether  representation 
in  a  National  Convention  ought  not  to  be  in  proportion  to  party 
strength  within  a  State.  At  present  the  States  are  represented 
in  the  National  Convention  as  they  are  represented  in  the  Na- 
tional Congress,  —  in  proportion  to  population.  In  a  Republi- 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  85 

can  National  Convention  a  hopelessly  Democratic  State  has  the 
same  voting  strength  as  a  safe  Republican  State  of  the  same 
population.  Georgia  casts  the  same  vote  in  nominating  the 
Republican  candidates  as  Iowa,  though  Iowa  is  quite  sure  to  con- 
tribute to  the  election  of  the  party  candidate  and  Georgia  is 
equally  sure  not  to  do  so.  The  Republicans  of  Iowa  cast, 
in  1900,  307,000  votes,  while  the  Republicans  of  Georgia 
cast  only  35,000  votes.  For  the  party  candidate  in  1900 
the  Republicans  of  Ohio  cast  543,000  votes,  while  the  Repub- 
licans of  South  Carolina,  Mississippi,  and  Louisiana  to- 
gether cast  23,565  votes.  In  a  National  Republican  Con- 
vention, Ohio  Republicans  may  cast  only  forty-six  votes, 
while  the  Republicans  from  these  three  Southern  States  may 
cast  fifty- two.  Why  should  not  the  voters  of  the  party  who  are 
to  be  relied  upon  to  elect  the  candidate  be  allowed  to  determine 
the  party  candidate  and  the  party  policy  ?  Or,  why  should  they 
not  have  weight  in  doing  this  in  proportion  to  their  party  num- 
bers, in  proportion  to  the  votes  which  they  cast  for  the  party 
candidates  ?  Party  conventions  within  the  States  recognize  the 
democratic  representative  principle.  The  different  counties  of 
the  State  are  represented  in  the  State  conventions  of  the  party 
in  proportion  to  party  numbers.  Party  vote  in  the  counties, 
not  population,  is  everywhere  recognized  as  the  true  basis  of 
representation.  A  county  is  allotted  one  delegate,  say,  for 
every  two  hundred  votes  (or  major  fraction  thereof)  cast  for  the 
party  candidate  at  the  head  of  the  ticket  at  the  last  preceding 
election.  No  one  questions  the  fairness  of  this  representation. 
The  late  Populist  party,  with  no  traditions  to  bind  it,  recognized 
the  new  popular  basis  of  representation  in  National  Conventions. 
It  allowed  that  each  State  should  appoint  two  delegates-at-large, 
and  then  one  for  every  two  thousand  votes  cast  in  the  State 
for  the  Populist  electors  in  1892.  Thus  in  the  Populist 
Convention  of  1896,  Texas,  entitled  in  the  old  party  conven- 
tions to  thirty  votes,  had  one  hundred  and  three  votes,  while 
New  York  had  but  thirty-six  votes.  Kansas  had  ninety-two 


86  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

votes,  Connecticut  but  six.  From  States  where  the  Populist 
party  was  strong  the  delegation  was  large.  This  would  tend  to 
secure  a  nomination  and  a  platform  not  by  States  but  by  the 
mass  of  the  voters  of  the  party.  By  this  plan  the  party,  not 
the  States,  makes  the  platform  and  the  candidates. 


2.    THE   CALL  OF  A  NATIONAL  CONVENTION1 

The  official  call  of  the  National  Convention  is  the  first  big 
gun  fired  in  the  party  campaign.  It  is  the  signal  to  all  the 
candidates  who  have  been  nursing  their  chances  to  become  the 
party's  candidate  that  at  last  the  real  struggle  within  the  party 
is  coming  to  a  head. 

To  the  Republican  Electors  of  the  United  States : 

In  accordance  with  established  custom  and  in  obedience  to 
instructions  of  the  Republican  National  Convention  of  1904,  the 
Republican  National  Committee  now  directs  that  a  National 
Convention  of  delegates  representative  of  the  Republican  party 
be  held  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  at  12  o'clock 
noon,  on  Tuesday,  the  i6th  day  of  June,  1908,  for  the  purpose  of 
nominating  candidates  for  President  and  Vice-President,  to  be 
voted  for  at  the  Presidential  election,  Tuesday,  November  3, 
1908,  and  for  the  transaction  of  such  other  business  as  may 
properly  come  before  it. 

The  Republican  electors  of  the  several  states  and  Territories 
including  Hawaii,  the  District  of  Columbia,  Alaska,  Porto  Rico 
and  the  Philippine  Islands,  and  all  other  electors,  without  regard 
to  past  political  affiliation,  who  believe  in  the  principles  of  the 
Republican  party  and  indorse  its  policies,  are  cordially  invited 
to  unite  under  this  call  in  the  selection  of  delegates  to  said  con- 
vention. 

Said  National  Convention  shall  consist  of  four  delegates-at- 

1  Official  Call,  by  the  Republican  Committee,  1908. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  87 

large  from  each  State,  two  delegates  for  each  Representative-at- 
large  in  the  Congress,  two  delegates  from  each  Congressional 
district  and  from  each  of  the  Territories  of  Arizona,  New  Mexico 
and  Hawaii,  two  delegates  from  the  District  of  Columbia,  and 
two  delegates  from  each,  Alaska,  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippine 
Islands.  For  each  delegate  elected  to  this  convention  an  al- 
ternate delegate  shall  be  chosen  to  serve  in  case  of  the  absence  of 
his  principal. 

The  delegates-at-large  and  their  alternates  shall  be  elected  by 
popular  State  and  Territorial  conventions,  of  which  at  least  thirty 
days'  notice  shall  have  been  published  in  some  newspaper  or 
newspapers  of  general  circulation  in  the  respective  State  or 
Territory. 

The  Congressional  district  delegates  shall  be  elected  by  con- 
vention called  by  the  Republican  Congressional  committee  of 
each  district,  of  which  at  least  thirty  days'  notice  shall  have  been 
published  in  some  newspaper  or  newspapers  of  general  circula- 
tion in  the  district;  provided,  that  in  any  Congressional  dis- 
trict where  there  is  no  Republican  Congressional  committee,  the 
Republican  State  Committee  shall  be  substituted  for  and  repre- 
sent the  Congressional  Committee  in  issuing  said  call  and  mak- 
ing said  publication;  and  provided,  that  delegates  both  from 
the  State  at  large  and  their  alternates  may  be  elected  in  conform- 
ity with  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  the  election  occurs ;  pro- 
vided, the  State  Committee  or  any  such  Congressional  committee 
so  direct ;  but,  provided  further,  that  in  no  State  shall  an  elec- 
tion be  so  held  as  to  prevent  the  delegates  from  any  Congres- 
sional district  and  their  alternates  being  selected  by  the  Repub- 
lican electors  of  that  district. 

The  election  of  delegates  from  the  District  of  Columbia  shall 
be  held  under  the  direction  and  supervision  of  an  election  board 
composed  of  Sidney  Bieber,  Percy  Cranford  and  George  F.  Col- 
lins of  the  District  of  Columbia.  This  board  shall  have  authority 
to  fix  the  date  of  said  election,  subject  to  prior  provisions  herein, 
and  to  arrange  all  details  incidental  thereto,  and  shall  provide 


88  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

for  a  registration  of  the  votes  cast,  such  registration  to  include 
the  name  and  residence  of  each  voter. 

The  delegates  from  the  Territories  of  Arizona,  New  Mexico, 
Hawaii  and  from  Alaska  shall  be  selected  in  the  manner  of  select- 
ing delegates  at  large  from  the  States  as  provided  herein. 

The  delegates  from  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippine  Islands 
shall  be  elected  in  conformity  with  certain  rules  and  regulations 
adopted  by  this  committee,  copies  of  which  are  to  be  furnished 
to  the  governing  committees  of  the  Republican  party  in  Porto 
Rico  and  the  Philippine  Islands. 

All  delegates  shall  be  elected  not  earlier  than  thirty  days  after 
the  date  of  this  call  and  not  later  than  thirty  days  before  the 
date  of  the  meeting  of  the  next  Republican  National  Convention. 

The  credentials  of  each  delegate  and  alternate  must  be  for- 
warded to  the  secretary  of  the  Republican  National  Committee 
at  Washington,  D.C.,  at  least  twenty  days  before  the  date  fixed 
for  the  meeting  of  the  convention,  for  use  in  making  up  its  tem- 
porary roll. 

In  any  case  where  more  than  the  authorized  number  of  dele- 
gates from  any  State,  Territory  or  delegate  district  are  reported 
to  the  secretary  of  the  National  Committee,  a  contest  shall  be 
deemed  to  exist,  and  the  secretary  shall  notify  the  several  dele- 
gates so  reported,  and  shall  submit  all  such  credentials  and  claims 
to  the  whole  committee  for  decision  as  to  which  delegates  reported 
shall  be  placed  on  the  temporary  roll  of  the  convention. 

All  notices  of  contest  shall  be  submitted  in  writing,  accom- 
panied by  a  printed  statement  setting  forth  the  grounds  of  con- 
test, which  must  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  the  committee 
twenty  days  prior  to  the  meeting  of  the  National  Convention. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  89 

3.     THE   WORK  OF   THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  1 

No  large  concourse  of  men  such  as  that  which  gathers  at  a 
national  convention  can  act  without  organization.  Fairness 
between  the  factions,  too,  can  be  secured  only  if  all  know  the  pro- 
cedure and  have  an  equal  opportunity  under  it.  How  the  con- 
vention is  organized  and  what  work  it  does  is  shown  by  the 
following  discussion. 

American  politics  does  not  offer  the  student  and  observer  a 
more  interesting  and  exciting  spectacle  than  may  be  witnessed 
in  the  National  Conventions.  They  have  been  the  scenes  of 
many  dramatic  and  historic  events,  and  their  proceedings  are 
well  worthy  of  the  student  and  the  historian  of  politics.  .  . 

The  preliminary  arrangements  for  the  Convention  are  en- 
trusted to  an  executive  committee  of  the  National  Committee. 
This  committee  of  arrangements  elects  a  sergeant-at-arms  of 
the  Convention,  and  to  him  is  entrusted  the  duty  of  superin- 
tending the  printing  of  tickets,  the  organization  of  a  force  to  act 
as  assistants,  ushers,  and  pages  to  seat  the  people  and  to  main- 
tain order  during  the  sessions  of  the  Convention. 

The  National  Convention  is  called  to  order  by  the  Chairman 
of  the  National  Committee.  The  proceedings  are  opened  with 
prayer.  The  National  Chairman  then  asks  the  Secretary  of  the 
Committee  to  read  the  call  of  the  National  Committee  by  which 
the  assembly  is  convened.  The  Committee  Chairman  then  im- 
mediately announces  to  the  Convention  the  name  of  the  tem- 
porary presiding  officer,  previously  chosen  by  the  National 
Committee.  This  nomination  is  usually  accepted  by  the  Con- 
vention without  contest  or  division.  If  there  is  opposition, 
however,  any  delegate  is  entitled  to  place  another  name  before 
the  Convention  and  call  for  a  vote ;  or  some  one  may  do  so  as 
the  representative  of  the  minority  of  the  National  Commit- 
tee. .  . 

1  Woodburn,  J.  P.,  Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the  United  States. 
Putnams,  New  York,  1906;  pp.  176-196. 


90  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

After  the  temporary  chairman  is  selected  he  addresses  the 
Convention  in  a  formal  speech  on  public  measures  and  on  the 
political  situation.  Following  his  speech  other  prominent  men 
are  likely  to  be  called  out  for  brief  speeches.  These  calls  are 
informal  and  are  not  a  part  of  the  regular  order  of  procedure. 
The  chairman  then  announces  that  until  a  permanent  organiza- 
tion is  effected  the  Convention  will  be  governed  by  the  rules  of 
the  preceding  Convention.  After  the  speeches  of  the  temporary 
chairman  and  others,  some  delegate  may  offer  a  resolution  like 
the  following : 

"  Resolved,  That  the  roll-call  of  States  and  Territories  be  now 
called  and  that  the  chairman  of  each  delegation  announce  the 
names  of  the  persons  selected  to  serve  on  the  several  committees 
as  follows : 

"  Permanent  Organization. 

"  Rules  and  Order  of  Business. 

"  Credentials. 

"Resolutions." 

These  committees,  on  a  roll-call  of  States,  are  then  named, 
not  by  the  Chairman,  but  by  the  respective  State  delegations, 
one  member  from  each  State  and  Territory  going  on  each  com- 
mittee. With  the  appointment  of  these  committees  the  first 
session  of  the  Convention  is  at  an  end. 

During  the  recess  of  the  Convention  the  committees  are  at 
work.  The  Committee  on  Credentials  is  hearing  the  evidence 
and  pleas  in  the  cases  of  contested  seats,  for  this  committee  must 
report,  at  the  next  session  if  possible,  as  to  what  delegates  are 
entitled  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  Convention.  Few  conventions 
meet  in  which  difficult  contests  do  not  come  up  for  decision,  — 
cases  in  which  "politics"  and  sharp  practice  play  important 
parts.  The  Committee  on  Resolutions  has  long  and  late  ses- 
sions, perfecting  the  platform  to  be  reported  to  the  Convention. 
The  Committee  on  Permanent  Organization  must  report  a  list 
of  permanent  officers  for  the  Convention,  and  the  Committee 
on  Rules  a  set  of  rules  to  guide  the  assembly. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  91 

At  the  second  session  of  the  Convention  the  first  business  in 
regular  order  is  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Credentials. 
If  this  committee  is  not  ready  to  report  it  will  probably  ask  for 
leave  to  sit  continuously  until  it  completes  its  labors.  The 
Convention  cannot  proceed  with  its  business  until  it  is  decided 
who  has  a  right  to  take  part  in  its  proceedings,  and  after  the  per- 
manent organization  is  effected  the  Convention  may  have  to 
adjourn  from  time  to  time  to  await  the  conclusion  of  the  Creden- 
tials Committee.  But  the  delay  of  this  committee  in  reporting 
does  not  postpone  the  permanent  organization.  This  may  be 
effected  under  the  presidency  of  the  temporary  chairman,  with 
the  understanding  that  those  may  vote  on  questions  relating  to 
permanent  organization  who  hold  the  certificates  of  membership 
in  the  Convention  issued  by  the  Secretary  of  the  National  Com- 
mittee. Whether  some  of  these  are  subsequently  displaced  by 
the  report  of  the  Credentials  Committee  may  be  determined 
later,  but  it  must,  however,  be  before  the  more  important  busi- 
ness of  the  Convention  is  transacted.  If  it  be  found  necessary 
to  grant  the  Credentials  Committee  more  time  the  temporary 
chairman  calls  for  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Permanent 
Organization.  This  committee  reports  the  name  of  a  permanent 
chairman,  a  corps  of  secretaries,  and  a  list  of  vice-presidents, 
one  from  each  State.  If  these  nominations  are  accepted  by  the 
Convention  the  permanent  chairman  is  escorted  to  the  platform 
and,  on  taking  the  chair,  he  also  makes  a  speech  to  the  Conven- 
tion, congratulating  the  party,  urging  harmony  and  wisdom  in 
the  party  councils,  reviewing  and  defining  the  issues,  in  brief, 
sounding  a  keynote  for  the  approaching  campaign.  If,  however, 
the  Committee  on  Credentials  be  ready  to  report  before  the  per- 
manent organization  is  effected,  the  Convention  proceeds  to  act 
upon  the  report  to  determine  its  own  membership.  The  Con- 
vention usually  accepts  the  majority  report  of  its  Committee  on 
Credentials,  but  sometimes  it  substitutes  a  minority  report  in- 
stead. Sometimes,  as  between  contesting  delegations  from  a 
State,  the  Convention  decides  to  seat  both  delegations,  giving 
each  delegate  a  half  vote.  .  . 


92,  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Having  been  permanently  organized  and  having  fixed  the 
membership  of  the  Convention,  the  assembly  then  proceeds  to 
consider  the  ' platform'  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Resolu- 
tions. The  platform  is  an  address  to  the  people,  consisting 
sometimes  of  various  'planks,'  or  a  series  of  resolutions,  some- 
times of  an  address  without  division  into  numbered  sections, 
containing  the  principles  and  program  of  the  party.  It  arraigns 
the  opposing  party  for  its  errors,  criticises  it  for  its  course,  joins 
issue  with  it  on  prominent  policies  before  the  public,  and  gives 
promise  as  to  what  the  party  will  do  if  it  is  elected  to  or  retained 
in  power.  In  the  platform  the  managers  usually  try  to  conciliate 
every  section  of  conflicting  party  opinion,  and  they  frequently 
produce  a  document  which  treats  with  'prudent  ambiguity'  the 
questions  on  which  there  is  division  within  the  party. 

The  platform  came  along  with  the  Convention  system.  The 
Democratic  declarations  of  1840  may  be  said  to  be  the  first  that 
involved  the  three  essential  factors  of  a  modern  platform,  —  a 
statement  of  fundamental  party  principles,  policies  to  be  pur- 
sued under  the  pending  circumstances,  and  pledges  that  these 
principles  and  policies  will  be  carried  out.  Before  this  there  were 
addresses  adopted  at  public  meetings,  resolutions  approved  by 
ratification  meetings,  criticisms  or  defences  of  the  Administra- 
tion published  by  party  leaders,  which  were  generally  accepted 
as  the  basis  of  party  action ;  but  these  were  not  platforms  in  our 
modern  sense.  In  a  general  way  only,  not  in  the  modern  party 
sense,  as  an  expression  adopted  by  elected  representatives  of  the 
party,  may  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798  be 
called  the  platform  upon  which  Jefferson  and  his  party  appealed 
to  the  country  in  opposition  to  the  Federalist  Administration  of 
that  day. 

The  National  Conventions  of  the  two  parties  are  very  similar 
to  one  another.  But  there  are  a  few  differences  that  are  im- 
portant, differences  which  are  regarded  as  'fundamental  and  as 
revealing  the  underlying  tendencies  and  principles  of  the  two 
parties.  These  differences  may  be  summed  up  in  what  are 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  93 

known  as  the  two-thirds  rule  and  the  unit  rule.'  The  two-thirds 
rule  provides  that  no  candidate  shall  be  declared  nominated  un- 
less he  shall  have  received  two  thirds  of  all  the  votes  cast.  This 
rule  prevails  only  in  the  Democratic  Convention.  The  two- 
thirds  rule  was  adopted  by  the  first  Democratic  Convention  of 
1832,  a  Convention  called  by  the  supporters  of  President  Jack- 
son for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a  candidate  for  the  vice-presi- 
dency. It  was  used  in  1836,  but  not  in  1840,  and  it  was  revived 
in  1844  in  order  to  defeat  the  nomination  of  Van  Buren,  and  it 
has  since  been  used  by  the  Democratic  party. 

There  is  a  connection  between  the  two-thirds  rule  and  the 
unit  rule.  If  the  two-thirds  rule  be  abrogated  while  the  unit 
rule  prevails,  a  few  of  the  large  States,  though  their  delegations 
may  be  nearly  evenly  divided,  may,  by  enforcing  the  unit  rule, 
secure  a  majority  of  the  Convention  for  a  candidate  whom  only 
a  minority  of  the  delegates  really  favor.  The  two-thirds  rule 
lessens  the  probability  of  this.  These  two  rules  have,  therefore, 
been  called  'two  parts  of  a  single  system,  and  that  system  the 
casting  of  State  votes  as  a  unit/ 

The  unit  rule  '  is  one  which  allows  (but  does  not  compel)  the 
majority  of  a  State  delegation  to  cast  the  entire  vote  of  a  State/ 
The  whole  vote  of  the  State  must  be  cast  as  the  majority  of  the 
delegation  decide.  Like  the  two-thirds  rule,  this  applies  only  in 
the  Democratic  Convention.  The  Republicans  do  not  use  it. 
It  is  a  rule  that  has  been  made  by  the  practice  of  the  State  dele- 
gations, and  the  National  Democratic  Convention  has  never 
seen  fit  to  interfere  with  this  method  of  casting  the  State  ballot. 
The  National  Convention  merely  permits  this  manner  of  voting. 

The  rule  approved  by  the  Democratic  Convention  of  1860 
asserted : 

"That  in  any  state  which  has  not  provided  or  directed  by  its 
State  convention  how  its  vote  may  be  given,  the  Convention 
will  recognize  the  right  of  each  delegate  to  cast  his  individual 
vote."  If  the  State  has  instructed  or  requested  the  delegation 
to  vote  as  a  unit,  the  Convention  rules  that  it  must  do  so,  and 


94  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  majority  should  decide.  The  authority  of  the  State  con- 
vention is  recognized.  The  State  delegation  may  decide  to  vote 
as  a  unit,  but  this  may  not  be  enforced  by  the  Convention.  But, 
if  the  State  convention  has  so  directed,  the  rule  is  enforced. 
"  This  recognizes  the  State  convention  as  supreme;  its  instruc- 
tions must  be  followed.  If  no  instructions  are  given,  the  Na- 
tional Convention  assumes  authority  and  allows  each  individual 
delegate  to  cast  his  own  vote." 

In  1872,  it  was  decided  that  in  voting  for  candidates  for 
President  and  Vice-President  "  the  chairman  of  each  delegation 
shall  rise  in  his  place  and  name  how  the  delegation  votes,  and 
his  statement  shall  be  considered  the  vote  of  such  State."  This 
left  to  the  Convention  no  means  of  discovering  whether  a  dele- 
gation which  votes  as  a  unit  is  doing  so  under  State  instruction, 
or  whether  the  majority,  in  the  absence  of  instruction,  may  not 
be  forcing  a  unit  vote  through  its  control  of  the  chairman.  Un- 
til 1896,  the  statements  of  the  chairman  have  been  more  or  less 
arbitrarily  received  and  all  objections  have  been  ruled  out  of 
order,  and  that,  too,  on  all  questions  on  which  a  State  vote 
has  been  called  for. 

There  was  resistance  to  the  unit  rule  in  1884,  in  order  to 
defeat  Mr.  Cleveland  by  preventing  the  whole  vote  of  New 
York  from  being  cast  for  him.  It  was  held  that  if  "  unit  instruc- 
tions were  ever  advisable  it  would  be  when  they  were  made  with 
reference  to  a  specific  policy  or  a  particular  candidate.  It  was 
the  practice  of  broadly  instructing  delegations  to  vote  as  a  unit 
on  all  questions  as  the  majority  dictated,  which  was  especially 
objectionable."  But  to  sustain  the  unit  rule  it  was  urged  that 
it  was  the  right  of  the  State  to  say  how  its  will  should  be  ex- 
pressed. "To  deny  the  States  this  right  is  to  strike  a  blow  at 
their  sovereignty.  The  Republican  party  may  stand  for  cen- 
tralized power,  but  the  Democratic  party  should  stand  for  the 
rights  of  the  States."  The  rule  thus  attacked  out  of  hostility 
to  Mr.  Cleveland  was  sustained  by  a  large  vote  in  the  Con- 
vention. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  95 

The  unit  rule  had  no  particular  time  for  its  origin.  It  is  a 
growth  in  practice.  Republican  Conventions  allow  each  indi- 
vidual delegate  to  cast  his  vote  as  he  chooses.  The  Democratic 
custom  as  to  the  unit  rule  has  never  been  introduced  into  the 
Republican  Conventions.  .  . 

One  Convention  defers  to  the  State  as  a  final  authority ;  it 
recognizes  an  authority  higher  than  itself.  The  other  overrules 
the  authority  of  the  state ;  it  stands  as  a  national  body  and  does 
not  recognize  an  authority  higher  than  itself.  This  is  the  dif- 
ference between  States'  rights  and  Nationalism.  The  Demo- 
cratic custom  is  a  survival  of  one  of  the  old  traditions  of  the 
party,  —  a  protest  against  centralization.  The  Republican 
custom  comes  from  a  disposition  to  make  the  central  authority 
supreme.  .  . 

It  is  said  that  the  Republican  party  in  allowing  each  district 
to  vote  independently  of  the  State  is  more  democratic  and  stands 
more  for  localism.  But  the  Republican  practice  does  not  recog- 
nize the  district  as  a  unit.  It  recognizes  neither  the  State  nor 
the  district  as  such.  It  regards  the  Convention  as  representing 
the  individual  citizens  of  the  nation.  Two  delegates  are  allotted 
to  each  district  as  a  convenient  geographical  division  of  the  coun- 
try, but  each  delegate  casts  his  own  vote  as  he  pleases,  and  dis- 
trict instructions  cannot  bind  the  two  delegates  to  vote  together 
nor  can  instructions  bind  them  to  vote  contrary  to  their  indi- 
vidual judgments.  This  makes  them  national  representatives, 
not  merely  district  delegates.  It  will  be  noted  by  those  ac- 
quainted with  American  history  that  these  tendencies  toward 
centralization  and  decentralization  respectively,  are  in  harmony 
with  the  history  and  purposes  of  the  two  parties. 

As  to  instructions  in  a  Convention,  a  delegate  will  generally 
feel  bound  to  vote  according  to  the  resolutions  of  the  State  or 
district  convention  appointing  him.  But  he  is  not  bound  to  do 
so.  Repeatedly  in  the  Republican  Conventions  delegates  have 
disregarded  instructions  and  have  been  sustained  by  the  Con- 
vention in  their  right  to  do  so.  State  and  district  conventions 


96  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

may  instruct  their  delegates  to  support  the  candidacy  of  a 
' favorite  son'  of  the  State,  and  such  instructions  are  usually 
observed,  though  not  always.  After  the  delegates  have  been 
chosen  and  instructed,  something  may  come  to  light  con- 
cerning the  proposed  nominee,  or  policy,  which  may  make  a 
violation  of  instructions  desirable,  if  not  necessary.  Van  Buren's 
letter  in  opposition  to  Texas  annexation  on  April  27,  1844,  caused 
a  meeting  in  Virginia  to  change  instructions ;  other  delegates  as- 
sumed that  their  constituents  would  not  regard  the  instructions 
as  binding ;  others  resigned  rather  than  carry  out  such  instruc- 
tions. Under  such  circumstances  it  may  be  the  duty  of  dele- 
gates to  disobey  their  instructions.  In  the  same  Democratic 
Convention  of  1844  the  delegates  from  New  York  were  instructed 
for  Van  Buren  who  were  not  at  heart  for  him.  They  voted  for  a 
two-thirds  rule,  which  was  sure  to  secure  his  defeat,  and  then 
nominally  carried  out  their  instructions  by  voting  for  Van  Buren 
on  the  first  ballot.  You  cannot  bind  men  that  have  no  heart 
for  the  cause,  men  that  are  untrustworthy  and  untrue,  and  it  is 
useless  to  bind  men  that  are.  However,  for  disregarding  his  in- 
structions, which,  presumably,  would  be  the  voice  of  his  constitu- 
ents, the  delegate  should  show  good  reasons.  He  would  be  con- 
demned, perhaps  politically  ostracized,  as  for  violating  a  trust, 
if  he  misrepresented  and  betrayed  the  people  whom  he  stands 
for.  The  ironclad  pledge  was  applied  to  the  members  of  the 
National  Republican  Convention  in  1880  by  a  resolution  which 
asserted  that  every  member  of  the  Convention  was  'in  honor 
bound  to  support  its  nominee,  whoever  that  nominee  may  be, 
and  that  no  man  should  hold  his  seat  here  who  is  not  ready  so  to 
agree.'  This  was  an  attempt  to  bind  the  action  of  the  delegates 
after  the  Convention,  or  to  prevent  men  of  independent  minds 
from  participating  in  the  party  action.  Such  a  pledge  will  not 
bind  the  unscrupulous,  and  men  of  honor  do  not  need  it. 

After  the  Convention  has  adopted  rules  and  has  determined 
its  membership  by  accepting  the  report  of  its  Committee  on 
Credentials,  and  after  it  has  adopted  a  platform,  it  proceeds  to 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  97 

nominate  candidates  for  President  and  Vice-President.  In- 
terest centres  in  the  presidential  nomination.  So  much  is  this 
true,  except  when  a  party  President  is  to  be  renominated,  that 
the  vice-presidency  receives  but  little  consideration.  Geograph- 
ical considerations  may  influence  the  choice  of  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent, or  the  victorious  wing  of  the  party  may  confer  the  nomi- 
nation on  a  leader  of  their  defeated  opponents  as  a  means  of 
soothing  disappointments  and  conciliating  and  uniting  all  ele- 
ments for  the  support  of  the  presidential  nominee.  It  often 
happens  that  entirely  unknown  men  are  named  for  Vice-Presi- 
dent. Of  course,  this  is  a  dangerous  custom,  for  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent should  be  a  man  as  well  equipped  for  the  first  place  as  the 
one  who  heads  the  ticket. 

In  the  contest  for  the  presidential  nomination  certain  classes 
of  candidates  are  recognized.  The  '  favorite '  is  one  of  the  promi- 
nent, leading  candidates,  who  has  been  before  the  public  for 
some  time,  for  whom  great  preliminary  efforts  have  been  made, 
who,  as  the  first  choice  of  a  large  number  from  all  parts  of  the 
country,  and  the  second  choice  of  many  others,  has  such  support 
as  to  lead  to  the  expectation  that  he  may  be  nominated.  The 
'  favorite  son '  is  a  leader  of  prominence  and  influence  in  his  State, 
who,  however,  has  not  been  a  figure  of  national  prominence  in 
politics.  His  support  comes  chiefly  from  his  home  State,  not 
generally  from  the  country  at  large.  His  State  delegates  are 
probably  instructed  for  him  and  are  working  for  his  nomination. 
The  hope  of  his  nomination  is  based  partly  on  his  recognized  fit- 
ness, partly  on  his  geographical  location,  largely  on  the  liability 
of  the  Convention  to  agree  upon  one  of  the  '  favorites '  or  on  the 
probability  that  the  'favorites'  will  kill  one  another  off.  The 
strife,  the  personal  rivalries,  the  bitterness  and  rancor  in  the 
Convention  are  likely  to  arise  among  the  '  favorites ' ;  the  '  fa- 
vorite sons,'  or  their  managers,  seek  to  avoid  exciting  personal 
antagonisms  and  animosities. 

The  '  dark  horse '  is  the  candidate  who  comes  into  the  running 
after  the  Convention  has  pretty  well  spent  its  energies  in  attempt- 


98  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

ing  to  choose  between  the  'favorites'  and  the  'favorite  sons/ 
The  candidacy  of  the  'dark  horse'  may  have  been  thoroughly 
planned,  the  runner  may  be  well  groomed  by  astute  managers 
before  his  name  is  mentioned  in  the  Convention,  or  before  he  is 
seriously  voted  for  there.  The  nomination  of  a  'dark  horse'  is 
not  likely  to  be  the  result  of  a  spontaneous  movement  in  the 
Convention,  without  pre-convention  work  or  plan,  though  it 
may  be  so.  A  man  who  is  recognized  as  a  fit  candidate,  but 
who  has  not  been  in  the  fight  for  the  nomination,  whom  the  Con- 
vention and  the  country  are  not  thinking  of  as  the  probable 
nominee,  who  has  not  been  identified  with  either  contending 
faction  in  the  party,  who  is  colorless  and  unobjectionable,  — 
such  a  man  is  an  eligible  'dark  horse.'  A  'dark  horse'  may  be 
mentioned  as  such  publicly,  but  it  is  understood  that  he  is  not  a 
candidate,  and  if  there  are  managers  who  intend  to  bring  in  his 
name  at  the  opportune  time,  any  intention  of  a  candidacy  on  his 
part  will  be  likely  to  be  denied.  The  struggle  in  the  Conven- 
tion is  not  only  to  nominate  a  man,  —  it  is  equally  for  the  pur- 
pose of  defeating  a  certain  man,  and  it  often  occurs  that  the 
struggle  resolves  itself  into  '  the  field  against  the  "  favorite. " '  If 
an  objectionable  '  favorite '  cannot  be  defeated  by  another  '  favor- 
ite,' as  Grant  could  not  be  beaten  by  Elaine  in  the  Republican 
Convention  of  1880,  the  field  might  be  united  in  opposition  to 
the  leading  'favorite'  by  the  candidacy  of  a  'dark  horse,'  as  was 
done  in  the  nomination  of  Garfield  in  that  year. 

The  candidates'  names  are  placed  before  the  Convention  on 
a  roll-call  of  the  States.  A  candidate  from  one  State  may  have 
his  name  placed  before  the  Convention  by  another  State,  and 
this  may  be  seconded  by  several  States  in  succession.  The  Con- 
vention votes  by  States,  alphabetically,  and  if  the  vote  as  an- 
nounced by  the  chairman  of  the  delegation  is  challenged,  the 
delegation  is  polled  in  open  Convention. 

When  there  are  several  candidates  before  the  Convention 
and  the  supporters  of  the  various  candidates  are  determined  and 
well  organized,  the  balloting  may  continue  for  a  number  of  days. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President  99 

When  the  weaker  factions  begin  to  change  their  votes  for  one  of 
the  stronger  candidates,  the  'break'  comes.  Instructions  and 
pledges  are  assumed  to  have  been  fulfilled,  and  the  delegates 
break  away  from  candidates  they  have  so  far  supported.  De- 
cisive balloting  is  likely  to  result.  Delegates,  as  a  rule,  have  a 
fondness  for  the  '  band- wagon,'  —  that  is,  they  wish  to  stand  in 
favor  with  the  successful  candidate  and  his  managers,  and  to  be 
identified  with  the  vanguard  of  victory.  Consequently,  at  a 
'  break '  in  the  balloting,  if  a  leading  candidate  seems  destined  to 
win  there  may  be  a  rush  of  delegates  to  his  support,  and  we  have 
the  'stampede.'  .  . 

Adjournment  is  the  only  means  of  resisting  a  stampede,  and 
if  that  fails,  the  managers  of  the  field  against  the  favorite  see 
that  the  battle  is  lost,  and  the  successful  candidate  goes  in  with 
votes  to  spare  and  'with  a  hurricane  of  cheering.'  A  motion  is 
offered  to  make  the  nomination  unanimous,  and  this  is  supported 
by  the  defeated  factions  with  as  much  grace  as  possible,  and  all 
pledge  loyalty  and  support  to  the  chosen  chieftain.  The  Con- 
vention, perhaps  after  recess,  proceeds  after  the  same  fashion 
to  nominate  a  candidate  for  Vice-President,  and  the  work  is  done. 
After  appointing  the  Convention  chairman  and  a  committee 
officially  to  inform  the  candidates  of  their  nomination  the  Con- 
vention adjourns  sine  die. 

4 .     A  FAVORITE-SON  BOOM  1 

Even  though  by  the  time  the  convention  meets  it  may  be 
almost  certain  who  will  be  the  party  nominee,  still  states  often 
loyally  put  forward  their  favorite  sons  as  candidates.  They 
may  some  day  be  in  the  position  of  the  more  favored  candidates, 
or,  if  a  deadlock  threaten,  they  may  even  now  be  the  men  from 
among  whom  the  compromise  candidate  may  be  chosen. 

Chicago,  111.,  June  16  —  (Special). — Wisconsin  made  a  gal- 
lant attempt  to-day  to  pierce  the  atmosphere  of  the  convention 

1  Milwaukee  Sentinel,  June  17,  1908. 


ioo  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

with  shafts  of  enthusiasm,  but  failed.  The  state  delegation, 
though  hopelessly  in  the  minority,  with  all  hope  of  nominating 
its  candidate  gone,  determined  to  make  the  convention  at  least 
sit  up  and  take  notice  that  the  Badger  state  is  on  the  map.  .  . 

They  made  a  good  showing.  Even  at  that  Wisconsin  was 
treated  but  little  worse  than  others.  When  the  Ohio  delegation 
came  in  with  a  picture  of  Taft  as  big  as  one  of  the  Dahlman  litho- 
graphs on  the  bill  boards  in  the  spring  primary  campaign,  there 
was  just  a  ripple  of  a  cheer. 

The  idea  of  doing  something  to  show  that  they  were  attending 
the  convention  came  to  the  Wisconsin  men  during  the  morning. 
No  arrangements  had  been  made,  aside  from  the  delegates  as- 
sembling at  the  convention,  until  Dr.  J.  M.  Beffel  and  Charles 
A.  A.  McGee  began  to  wake  them  up. 

Something  ought  to  be  done,  they  said,  to  show  Chicago  that 
there  was  a  La  Follette  boom  in  town.  No  matter  if  it  was  so 
small  as  not  to  be  easily  distinguished  in  a  crowd.  Make  noise 
enough  and  curiosity  would  do  the  rest.  The  plan  took.  All 
that  was  needed  was  a  starter. 

Dr.  Beffel  went  out  to  find  a  sign  painter  who  could  prepare 
banners  and  Ellery's  band  was  engaged  to  head  the  column  of 
Badgers  on  a  march  to  the  Coliseum.  Ten  o'clock  came  and 
there  were  no  signs  of  Dr.  Beffel.  Half  past  10  o'clock  arrived 
and  still  he  delayed  while  the  delegates  at  headquarters  began  to 
get  nervous.  Just  before  1 1  o'clock,  the  time  at  which  the  Wis- 
consin caucus  adjourned,  the  doctor  came  tearing  into  the  lobby 
with  a  roll  under  one  arm  and  a  bundle  of  what  looked  like  set 
pieces  for  a  fireworks  show  under  the  other.  He  dumped  both 
on  the  assembly  room  floor  where  it  developed  that  the  one  was 
standards  for  banners  and  the  other  the  banners  themselves. 
Here  was  what  the  doctor  and  the  sign  painter  had  together 
evolved,  in  the  way  of  stirring  sentiments : 

" Little  Bob,  the  People's  Champion."  "Physical  Valuation 
of  Railroads."  "We  Stand  for  Representative  Government." 
"A  Sound  Currency."  "Wisconsin  for  Robert  M.  La  Follette." 


Convention  and  Election 'of*  President        ;ioJ 

"Probe  the  Telegraph  and  Telephone  Systems."  "Tariff  Re- 
vision." 

The  banners  were  tacked  in  place  and  by  the  time  Chairman 
Brumder  called  the  caucus  to  order  they  were  ready. 

In  the  caucus  Mr.  McGee,  who  had  been  appointed  marshal 
of  the  informal  parade,  announced  the  delegation,  with  all  Wis- 
consin people  here,  would  form  in  double  column  and  march 
down  Jackson  boulevard  to  Michigan  avenue  to  the  Auditorium 
where  a  stop  would  be  made  for  the  band  to  play  a  number  or 
two,  when  the  march  would  be  resumed  to  the  Coliseum.  This 
program  was  carried  out.  With  the  band  leading  and  the  dele- 
gates at  large  at  the  head,  the  procession  moved  on  the  Coli- 
seum. .  . 

It  had  been  planned  to  march  up  the  aisle  of  the  Coliseum  to 
Wisconsin's  place,  with  the  band  leading.  But  on  arriving  the 
assistant  sergeant-at-arms  at  the  door  backed  by  a  stalwart  po- 
liceman refused  to  let  the  band  in  as  a  rule  had  been  adopted 
against  it.  The  band  therefore  remained  outside  while  the  dele- 
gation went  on  inside  and  struggled  through  the  crowd  in  the  side 
aisle  to  its  place,  which  is  to  the  right  in  front  of  the  platform, 
an  excellent  strategical  position  when  it  is  wanted  to  catch  the 
eye  of  the  chairman. 

5.     CONVENTION  ENTHUSIASM1 

The  national  convention  is  a  mobile  body.  The  parti- 
sans of  each  candidate  do  all  they  can  to  catch  the  support  of 
wavering  or  opposing  delegates  and  to  influence  the  entire  body 
by  skillful  appeals  to  the  enthusiasm  of  those  in  the  galleries. 

Chicago,  111.,  June  18.  —  Wisconsin's  presentation  of  the 
name  of  Robert  M.  La  Follette  as  its  choice  for  president  of  the 
United  States  was  accorded  an  ovation  in  the  Republican  na- 
tional convention  this  afternoon  such  as  was  given  to  no  other 
candidate  and  to  no  other  state.  The  name  of  La  Follette  was 

1  Milwaukee  Free  Press,  June  19,  1908. 


io'2  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

cheered  by  the  people  in  the  galleries  more  generally  than  that 
of  any  other  candidate. 

The  La  Follette  demonstration  differed  from  that  for  Taft  in 
that  it  appeared  to  be  entirely  spontaneous.  It  was  a  demon- 
stration among  the  spectators,  in  which  but  few  of  the  delegates 
outside  of  Wisconsin  participated,  while  that  for  Mr.  Taft  was 
participated  in  by  something  over  700  delegates  who  were  in- 
structed for  him  and  who  voted  for  him  on  the  roll  call. 

The  La  Follette  ovation  would  have  been  a  record  breaker  had 
it  occurred  previously  to  the  attempted  stampede  for  Roosevelt 
on  Wednesday.  For  more  than  twenty  minutes  the  spectators  in 
the  gallery  yelled  their  approval  of  the  little  man  from  Wisconsin. 
For  twenty  minutes  the  Wisconsin  delegation  stood  upon  chairs 
and  waved  banners,  while  Dick  White  of  Milwaukee  carried 
Robert  La  Follette,  Jr.,  on  his  shoulders  up  and  down  the  aisles 
of  the  convention  hall. 

The  familiar  "U  Rah  Rah,  Wisconsin,"  was  heard  in  every 
quarter  of  the  hall.  Several  efforts  were  made  to  stem  the  ova- 
tion, but  without  avail. 

The  police  attempted  to  force  the  Wisconsin  delegation  to  de- 
sist, and  one  policeman  approached  National  Committeeman 
Alfred  T.  Rogers  and  ordered  him  to  get  down  off  his  chair  to 
stop  the  cheering.  This  effort,  too,  was  without  avail.  When 
the  cheering  had  been  in  progress  about  twenty  minutes,  some 
one  secured  a  large  American  flag  and  pinned  lithographs  of 
President  Roosevelt  to  it  and  waved  it  from  the  gallery  in  an  ef- 
fort to  turn  the  La  Follette  demonstration  into  one  for  Roosevelt. 

When  the  Wisconsin  delegation  saw  the  Roosevelt  flag,  they 
resumed  their  seats.  The  character  of  the  demonstration  at 
once  changed  and  the  attention  of  the  crowd  was  diverted  to  a 
possibility  of  stampeding  the  convention  for  Roosevelt,  but  the 
crowd  apparently  had  spent  its  Roosevelt  enthusiasm  on  Wednes- 
day, for  within  two  minutes  after  the  presentation  of  the  Roose- 
velt banners,  the  demonstration  ceased  and  the  roll  call  began. 

When  Henry  F.  Cochems  of  Milwaukee  was  introduced  to  the 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         103 

convention,  the  noise  and  disturbance  which  had  been  so  pro- 
nounced during  the  latter  part  of  the  speech  delivered  by  the 
man  who  had  directly  preceded  him,  ceased.  Mr.  Cochems's 
voice  could  be  heard  throughout  the  major  portion  of  the  great 
hall,  and  when  the  crowd  learned  that  he  had  something  to  say 
out  of  the  ordinary  run  of  nominating  speeches,  he  was  given 
splendid  attention.  He  was  frequently  interrupted  by  cries  of 
"Good,"  "Go  ahead,"  "We're  for  him."  .  . 

Chairman  Lodge  pounded  with  his  gavel  and  attempted  to 
restore  order,  but  the  pounding  of  the  gavel  could  not  be  heard. 
The  band  in  the  rear  gallery  played.  The  leader  waved  his  arms, 
but  no  one  heard  the  music. 

This  was  Wisconsin  day  in  the  convention.  Twice  Wisconsin 
was  heard  from.  Twice  the  galleries  shouted  their  approval. 
Every  Wisconsin  man  in  Chicago  was  hoarse.  Every  Wisconsin 
man  was  happy. 

6.     CONVENTION  ORATORY1 

Nominating  speeches  are  famous  for  the  fervid  oratory 
which  is  often  their  characteristic.  More  than  one  party  candi- 
date has  owed  his  influence  in  the  convention  and  even  his  final 
nomination  to  a  successful  appeal  to  some  phase  of  the  over- 
flowing party  feeling,  made  by  the  man  who  places  the  candi- 
date's name  before  the  convention. 

Wisconsin  offers  her  candidate  to  the  nation,  not  because  he 
is  her  favorite  son,  not  because  we  know  him  and  love  him,  not 
because  of  his  ability,  integrity,  and  experience  alone,  but  be- 
cause in  him  we  know  there  is  embodied  in  ideal  poise  and  bal- 
ance those  other  splendid  elements  and  attributes  which  most 
nearly  respond  to  the  requirements  of  the  hour  and  the  demands 
of  the  people,  and  which  alone  qualify  for  leadership  in  this 
great  national  crisis. 

1  Cochems,  H.  F.,  Speech  nominating  Robert  M.  La  Follette  for  President, 
1908. 


IO4  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

The  paramount  problem  pressing  for  solution  to-day  has  no 
parallel  in  the  economic  or  industrial  history  of  man.  In  a  gen- 
eration since  the  war  of  the  rebellion  we  have  rushed  at  a  runa- 
way pace  from  industrial  freedom  to  industrial  oligarchy.  .  . 

A  government  founded  on  a  theory  of  equality  of  opportunity 
cannot  survive  when  social  and  economic  opportunity  have  been 
extinguished.  We  have  here  a  problem  in  institutional  history 
which  looks  beyond  the  selfish  purpose  of  the  hour  and  sees  with 
sure  perspective  and  clear  vision  the  rights  of  generations  to 
come  and  the  future  destiny  of  our  common  country. 

Ten  years  ago  Wisconsin  was  as  shackled  as  they  are  to-day 
in  most  of  the  states  of  the  union.  The  interests  controlled 
the  state  government  completely.  They  were  powerfully  en- 
trenched. Led  by  the  Governor,  two  United  States  Senators, 
eight  out  of  eleven  members  of  Congress,  and  a  corps  of  past 
masters  in  the  political  game,  they  counted  in  solid  rank  the 
state  Legislature,  state  employees,  and  four  thousand  federal 
employees.  Their  propaganda  was  published  through  a  united 
daily  press  and  ninety  per  cent  of  the  country  newspapers. 
Their  commissary  was  largely  furnished  from  the  treasury  of 
three  great  railroads,  the  united  public  service  interests,  and 
wealth  of  the  state.  The  recession  of  the  Populist  movement 
made  the  term  "reformer5'  or  "radical"  an  obnoxious  stigma  in 
our  conservative  state.  It  was  a  stubborn  soil  in  which  to  plant 
seeds  of  reform  which  promised  a  harvest  of  bitterness  and  dis- 
appointment. None  but  a  man  of  iron  soul,  none  but  a  man  of 
heroic  purpose,  would  have  dared  to  contemplate  the  contest 
against  such  odds.  But  Providence  has  furnished  us  the  man. 
A  man  who  saw  clearly  and  was  not  afraid. 

You  know  something  of  the  furious  warfare  which  has  gone 
forward  in  Wisconsin  during  those  years.  It  was  a  holy  war  in 
the  people's  cause.  Year  after  year,  riding  the  saddle  by  night 
and  by  day,  his  sword  was  never  sheathed.  When  the  way  was 
dark  he  kept  the  fires  lighted  upon  the  hills ;  when  the  people 
wearied  his  strong  arm  was  about  them.  .  . 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         105 

To  those  who  call  him  Radical  our  reply  is  that  the  radicals 
to-day  are  the  blind,  without  perspective,  who  will  not  see  that 
the  demands  of  conditions  have  outstripped  the  relief  of  legisla- 
tion, and  who  obstruct  the  passage  of  such  necessary  relief.  Our 
further  answer  is  that  no  propaganda  was  ever  announced  in 
his  career  which  has  not  been  justified  by  the  course  of  events 
and  to-day  in  Wisconsin  no  man  asks  the  repeal  of  a  letter  of  the 
laws  written  upon  the  books  through  his  labor  and  his  genius. 
We  have  never  marched  to  Moscow,  have  never  struck  our  colors, 
and  we  have  never  sounded  a  retreat.  The  meaning  of  conser- 
vatism has  been  prostituted  to  mean  stagnation.  The  country 
demands  a  progressive  conservative,  a  man  who,  instructed  by 
the  lessons  of  the  past,  will  yet  move  on  and  on,  planting  the 
flag  further  and  yet  further  forward,  until  justice  shall  come  into 
its  own  and  the  spirit  of  American  institutions  be  vindicated. 

If  we  are  to  stay  the  fatal  progress  of  perverse  conditions  we 
cannot  falter,  we  cannot  compromise,  we  cannot  turn  back. 
This  is  a  war,  a  war  in  which  modern  industrialism  is  on  trial  and 
in  which  the  institution  of  private  property  is  being  weighed  in 
the  balance.  In  this  contest  there  is  no  place  for  the  genial  and 
gentle  art,  or  men  of  peace,  for  compromise  to-day  spells  death. 
In  this  war  the  people  will  have  their  own  leader.  They  will 
have  no  raw  recruit,  but  a  veteran,  bronzed  and  battered  in  the 
conflict.  They  will  have  no  cadet,  but  a  general,  skilled  not 
only  in  regular  battle,  but  who  has  triumphed  over  Indian  and 
guerilla  warfare ;  who  cannot  be  seduced  by  flattery  and  smiling 
promise,  who  knows  the  proffered  hand  of  Esau,  and  who  will 
fight  on  and  on  until  predatory  wealth  has  found  its  Appomattox. 

We  offer  him  here.  I  have  seen  him  in  the  fray,  with  jaw  set, 
his  eyes  blazing,  his  whole  figure  instinct  with  indomitable 
energy  for  the  justice  of  his  cause.  Man  of  battle,  unparalleled 
in  the  history  of  American  politics,  fighting  the  cause  of  the  com- 
mon people,  his  sword  ringing  upon  the  armor  of  his  enemy, 
neither  asking  nor  giving  quarter.  Call  him  ambitious,  call  him 
hypocrite,  call  him  demagogue,  all  familiar  words  in  the  vernacu- 


io6  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

lar  of  his  enemies,  but  call  him  what  you  will,  he  will  live  in 
memory  as  the  most  splendid  type  of  fighting  citizen  which  this 
generation  has  given  to  the  Republic.  .  . 

We  believe  that  the  pioneer  in  this  movement  who  was  good 
enough  to  break  the  stubborn  soil  and  plant  the  seed,  is  good 
enough  to  reap  the  golden  harvest  and  bring  it  home  to  the  peo- 
ple in  its  bounty.  Through  all  the  years  Robert  M.  La  Toilette 
has  stood  like  "a  bold  mountain  about  whose  summits  the  hurri- 
canes have  raged  in  vain  and  upon  whose  base  the  angry  waves 
have  beat  their  surge,  unshaken  and  unshakeable."  For  ten 
years  he  has  carried  this  war  upon  the  point  of  his  sword  and 
from  the  light  that  gleamed  from  his  shining  blade  was  lit  the 
blaze  that  carried  forward  the  war  in  Wisconsin,  fired  the  heart 
of  Roosevelt,  and  to-day,  like  the  face  of  the  morning,  is  leading 
the  national  crusaders  along  the  pathway  of  reform. 

The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire.  Wisconsin  offers  her  fore- 
most citizen,  a  man  of  iron  with  a  heart  of  gold,  Robert  M. 
La  Follette. 

7.     THE  ELECTION  OF  THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  l 

Few  of  us  realize  that  nominally  no  citizen  votes  at  the 
national  election  for  a  candidate  for  President.  The  vote  is 
for  one  who  is  nominally  to  help  select,  though  in  fact  only  to 
be  the  bearer  of  the  party  will  as  to  who  should  be,  President. 
How  these  members  of  the  so-called  " electoral  college"  are 
chosen,  is  a  matter  still  left  almost  entirely  with  the  states.  The 
Federal  government  has,  however,  provided  how  the  votes  of  the 
"electors"  shall  be  cast. 

The  highest  offices  in  the  national  government  are  not  filled 
by  direct  vote.  The  president  and  vice-president  are  chosen  by 
the  electoral  college ;  United  States  senators  are  elected  by  the 
legislatures  of  the  states,  and  the  judges  of  the  United  States 
supreme  court  are  appointed  by  the  president  with  the  consent 
of  the  senate.  .  . 

1  Fuller,  R.  H.,  Government  by  the  People.     Macmillan,  1908 ;  pp.  120-134. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         107 

Although  the  names  of  the  party  candidates  for  president  and 
vice-president  appear  upon  the  ballots,  the  voters  do  not  vote  for 
them  but  for  presidential  electors,  whose  duty  it  is  to  elect  them. 
The  framers  of  the  constitution  did  not  deem  it  wise  to  leave  the 
choice  of  the  president  to  the  mass  of  the  voters,  because  they 
feared  that  the  voters  were  not  sufficiently  conservative  and  in- 
telligent to  make  a  judicious  choice.  Their  distrust  has  been 
corrected  by  custom  and  precedent,  but  it  is  still  possible  for  a 
presidential  candidate  to  be  the  choice  of  a  majority  of  all  the 
voters  participating  in  the  election  and  yet  suffer  defeat. 

Various  plans  were  proposed  for  the  election  of  the  president 
without  resort  to  a  direct  vote.  It  was  suggested  that  the  elec- 
tion be  left  to  the  congress,  but  the  constitutional  convention 
was  unwilling  to  adopt  this  idea  because  it  would  make  the  chief 
executive  subordinate  to  the  legislative  body.  The  plan  of  leav- 
ing the  election  to  the  state  legislatures  was  also  rejected.  The 
convention  finally  decided  to  create  an  electoral  college,  con- 
taining as  many  electors  as  there  are  senators  and  representatives 
in  congress,  on  the  theory  that  such  a  body  would  represent  the 
best  intelligence  of  the  nation.  Party  organization  was  then  in 
embryo.  The  national  party  convention  had  not  yet  come  into 
existence  and  there  was  no  recognized  method  of  designating 
party  candidates.  The  election  turned  upon  the  qualifications 
of  the  individual  candidates  rather  than  upon  the  principles  and 
doctrines  of  the  parties  to  which  they  belonged.  The  electors, 
therefore,  were  left  free  to  exercise  their  own  judgment  in  cast- 
ing their  votes  for  the  two  highest  national  offices. 

It  was  provided  that  if  no  candidate  received  a  majority  of 
the  votes  in  the  electoral  college,  then  the  house  of  representa- 
tives should  elect,  its  members  voting  by  states  and  each  state 
having  one  vote.  The  choice  of  the  house,  however,  was  limited 
originally  to  the  five,  and  after  1804  to  the  three,  candidates 
who  had  received  the  highest  number  of  votes  in  the  electoral 
college. 

The  constitution  originally  required  each  elector  to  vote  for 


io8  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

two  candidates  for  president  and  the  candidate  who  received  the 
most  votes  was  declared  elected  president,  while  the  candidate 
who  received  the  next  highest  number  of  votes  was  declared 
elected  vice-president.  This  plan  gave  the  strongest  candidate 
in  the  electoral  college  the  presidency  and  his  foremost  competi- 
tor the  vice-presidency.  It  was  very  likely  that  the  two  men 
would  hold  opposing  political  views,  so  that,  in  effect,  the  major- 
ity party  elected  the  president  and  the  minority  party  the  vice- 
president.  In  case  of  the  death  of  the  president  while  in  office, 
the  majority  party  would  have  been  compelled  to  give  way  to  the 
minority,  since  the  vice-president  would  succeed  to  the  presi- 
dency. The  adoption  of  this  plan  could  have  been  possible  only 
at  a  time  when  men  were  considered  rather  than  parties,  when 
parties  had  not  begun  to  formulate  their  principles  in  national 
"platforms,"  and  when  the  offices  within  the  appointing  power 
of  the  president  were  not  used  to  build  up  party  organizations 
upon  the  plan  of  the  "spoils  system."  George  Washington  was 
twice  elected  president  by  practically  unanimous  consent.  The 
federalists  in  1796  united  upon  John  Adams  for  president  and 
Thomas  Pinckney  for  vice-president,  while  the  democratic- 
republicans  selected  Thomas  Jefferson  for  president  and  Aaron 
Burr  for  vice-president.  There  were  138  electors  in  the  elec- 
toral college  and  each  of  them  voted  for  two  candidates  for  presi- 
dent. The  result  gave  Adams  seventy-one  votes,  Jefferson 
sixty-eight,  Pinckney  fifty-nine,  Burr  thirty,  Samuel  Adams 
fifteen,  Oliver  Ellsworth  eleven,  George  Clinton  seven,  John 
Jay  five,  James  Iredell  three,  George  Washington  two,  John 
Henry  two,  Samuel  Johnson  two,  and  Charles  C.  Pinckney  one. 
John  Adams  was  elected  president  and  Thomas  Jefferson,  his 
great  rival,  was  made  vice-president.  This  was  the  first  presi- 
dential election  in  which  there  was  a  contest. 

In  the  next  presidential  election,  in  1800,  the  two  parties  put 
forward  the  same  candidates  as  before  and  the  members  of  the 
electoral  college  for  the  first  time  voted  by  parties.  Jefferson 
and  Burr  each  received  seventy- three  votes,  the  full  strength  of 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         109 

the  democratic-republicans.  Adams  received  sixty-five  votes, 
and  Pinckney  sixty-four,  one  federalist  elector  voting  for  John 
Jay  so  that  Adams  might  have  one  more  vote  than  Pinckney 
and  thus  be  entitled  to  the  presidency  if  the  federalists  should 
win.  The  democratic-republicans  had  not  taken  this  precau- 
tion and  therefore  there  was  a  tie  vote  between  their  two  candi- 
dates, Jefferson  and  Burr,  for  the  presidency,  although  they  had 
intended  to  elect  Burr  to  the  vice-presidency.  Because  of  this 
tie,  the  election  was  thrown  into  the  house  of  representatives, 
where,  after  thirty-six  ballots,  ten  states  voted  for  Jefferson  and 
four  for  Burr.  The  constitution  was  then  amended  so  as  to  pro- 
vide for  the  election  of  the  president  and  the  vice-president  by 
separate  ballots  for  each  office. 

In  the  presidential  campaign  of  1824  Andrew  Jackson,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Henry  Clay,  and  William  H.  Crawford  were 
candidates  for  president.  John  C.  Calhoun  was  chosen  vice- 
president  by  the  electoral  college,  but  none  of  the  presidential 
candidates  had  a  majority  of  the  electors,  the  vote  being :  Jack- 
son ninety-nine,  Adams  eighty-four,  Crawford  forty-one,  and 
Clay  thirty-seven.  The  election  of  the  president,  therefore, 
was  again  thrown  into  the  house  of  representatives  and  Adams 
was  elected  by  a  majority  of  the  states,  receiving  thirteen  votes 
to  seven  for  Jackson  and  four  for  Crawford.  Clay  had  been 
dropped  because  he  was  not  among  the  first  three  in  the  elec- 
toral college. 

The  closest  presidential  election  was  that  of  1884,  when  Grover 
Cleveland,  Democrat,  defeated  James  G.  Blaine,  Republican. 
The  popular  vote  for  the  presidential  electors  nominated  by  the 
democrats  was  4,854,986,  while  the  electors  nominated  by  the 
republicans  received  4,855,011  votes.  Blaine,  therefore,  had 
twenty-five  votes  more  than  Cleveland  in  a  total  vote  of  the 
parties,  whose  candidates  they  were,  of  9,709,997.  In  the  elec- 
toral college  Cleveland  had  219  votes  and  Blaine  182. 

This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Democratic  electors  carried 
New  York  state  by  a  plurality  of  1149  in  a  total  vote  of  the  two 


no  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

great  parties  in  the  state  of  1,125,159.  This  gave  Cleveland  the 
thirty-six  electoral  votes  of  the  state.  The  result  of  this  election 
demonstrated  the  importance  of  preventing  fraud  in  the  casting 
and  counting  of  the  votes  and  gave  a  powerful  impetus  to  the 
passage  of  election  reform  laws.  A  change  of  only  575  votes 
from  the  democratic  to  the  republican  side  would  have  changed 
the  result. 

Although  Cleveland  received  a  plurality  of  the  popular  vote 
in  1888  he  was  defeated  by  Benjamin  Harrison,  republican.  The 
total  vote  for  the  democratic  electors  was  5,540,329,  and  for 
the  republican  electors  5,439,853.  The  democratic  electors 
thus  received  100,476  more  votes  than  the  republican  electors, 
but  the  thirty-six  electoral  votes  of  New  York  state  again  de- 
cided the  result.  The  republican  electors  carried  the  state  by  a 
plurality  of  13,002  in  a  total  vote  cast  by  the  two  parties  of 
1,284,516,  and  in  the  electoral  college  Harrison  had  233  votes  to 
1 68  for  Cleveland.  .  . 

There  is  no  general  law  regulating  the  election  of  presidential 
electors.  The  federal  constitution  says  that:  "Each  state  shall 
appoint,  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  thereof  may  direct,  a 
number  of  electors  equal  to  the  whole  number  of  senators  and 
representatives  to  which  the  state  may  be  entitled  in  congress." 
Under  this  permission  some  of  the  states  passed  laws  providing 
for  the  choice  of  electors  by  the  legislature,  while  other  states 
chose  them  by  popular  vote.  All  of  the  states,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  South  Carolina,  abandoned  the  legislative  election  of 
electors  after  1824,  but  South  Carolina  continued  it  until  the 
civil  war.  In  many  of  the  states  before  1832  electors  corre- 
sponding to  representatives  in  congress  were  chosen  by  congres- 
sional districts,  while  the  two  electors  corresponding  to  the  two 
United  States  senators  were  elected  "at  large"  by  the  voters  of 
the  entire  state.  Under  this  method  it  was  possible  for  the  elec- 
toral vote  of  a  state  to  be1  divided  in  the  electoral  college  accord- 
ing to  the  political  complexion  of  congressional  districts.  Michi- 
gan is  the  only  state  which  has  followed  this  plan  in  recent  years. 


. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         1 1 1 


It  gave  Cleveland  five  electoral  votes  in  1892  and  Harrison  nine. 
The  rule  now  generally  accepted  is  to  nominate  all  the  electors 
in  a  state  convention,  distinguishing  the  two  electors-at-large 
from  the  district  electors.  The  list  thus  nominated  by  each 
party  is  printed  on  the  official  ballot  beneath  the  names  of  the 
candidates  nominated  by  the  national  convention  of  the  party 
for  president  and  vice-president,  who  cannot  be  voted  for  di- 
rectly. It  is  usual  for  a  voter  to  say  that  he  cast  his  ballot  for 
this  or  that  candidate  for  president  when,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
actually  voted  for  the  electors  named  by  the  party  whose  candi- 
date for  president  he  supported. 

Even  when  the  electors  are  voted  for  by  all  the  voters  in  a 
state,  it  is  still  possible  that  they  may  be  divided  by  party  lines. 
In  counting  the  votes  cast  for  electors,  the  individual  candidates 
are  declared  elected  in  the  order  of  the  number  of  votes  each  has 
received  until  the  number  of  electors  to  which  the  state  is  entitled 
in  the  electoral  college  is  complete.  While  the  electors  nomi- 
nated by  a  party  in  a  state  are  usually  either  elected  or  defeated 
in  a  body,  the  scratching  of  tickets  may  divide  the  electoral  vote 
of  a  state.  For  example,  if  a  state  is  entitled  to  ten  electoral 
votes,  the  majority  party  may  elect  nine  of  its  candidates  for 
electors  while  the  tenth,  either  because  of  his  unpopularity  or  the 
popularity  of  one  of  the  candidates  on  the  minority  party  ticket, 
may  be  defeated. 

There  is  no  general  assemblage  of  the  electoral  college.  The 
constitution  provides  that  the  electors  shall  meet  in  their  re- 
spective states  and  vote  by  distinct  ballots  for  president  and 
vice-president,  making  separate  certified  lists  of  all  persons  re- 
ceiving votes  for  each  office  and  the  number  of  votes  received  by 
each  candidate.  These  lists  must  be  sent  sealed  to  the  presi- 
dent of  the  senate  who  must  break  the  seals  in  the  presence  of 
the  senate  and  the  house  of  representatives,  and  the  votes  must 
then  be  counted.  The  candidates  for  president  and  vice-presi- 
dent who  are  found  to  have  received  a  majority  of  all  the  elec- 
toral votes  are  declared  elected.  If  no  candidate  for  president 


U2  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

has  received  such  a  majority,  the  members  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives must  immediately  proceed  to  choose  a  president  from 
among  the  three  candidates  having  the  largest  number  of  elec- 
toral votes.  The  vote  of  the  house  must  be  taken  by  states  and  a 
majority  of  all  the  states  is  necessary  to  a  choice.  If  no  candi- 
date for  vice-president  has  a  majority  of  all  the  electoral  votes, 
the  senate  must  choose  as  vice-president  one  of  the  two  candi- 
dates who  have  received  the  highest  number  of  electoral  votes 
and  a  majority  of  all  the  senators  is  necessary  to  a  choice. 

The  growth  of  party  power  and  influence  has  destroyed  the 
freedom  of  choice  which  was  left  to  the  electors  by  the  constitu- 
tion. The  electors  are  now  regarded  as  mere  representatives  of 
the  party  which  chooses  them,  bound  to  vote  for  the  candidates 
for  president  and  vice-president  nominated  by  that  party. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  law  to  prevent  an  elector  from  voting 
for  any  candidate,  but  the  moral  obligation  to  vote  only  for  the 
candidates  of  his  party  is  so  strong  that  it  is  never  broken. 

No  provision  was  made  in  the  constitution  for  the  settlement 
of  controversies  over  the  choice  of  electors.  This  omission  led 
to  a  dangerous  crisis  after  the  presidential  election  of  1876,  when 
Samuel  J.  Tilden  was  nominated  by  the  democrats  and  Ruther- 
ford B.  Hayes  by  the  republicans.  It  was  conceded  that  Tilden 
had  received  a  popular  plurality  of  more  than  250,000  votes,  but 
the  returns  from  several  of  the  states  were  disputed,  each  party 
claiming  the  electors  and  each  sending  the  vote  of  its  electors 
to  the  president  of  the  senate.  The  democrats  had  a  majority 
in  the  house  and  the  republicans  in  the  senate,  so  that  neither 
party  was  able  to  have  its  return  from  the  disputed  states  de- 
clared valid.  It  was  finally  decided  to  refer  the  controversy  to 
a  "Returning  Board"  or  electoral  commission,  consisting  of  five 
senators,  five  representatives,  and  five  judges  of  the  United 
States  supreme  court.  This  commission  decided  that  Hayes 
had  carried  Florida  by  a  plurality  of  926  and  Louisiana  by  a 
plurality  of  4627.  The  supreme  court  of  Florida  had  given  Til- 
den a  plurality  of  94  in  that  state  and  the  face  of  the  returns  in 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         113 

Louisiana,  it  was  asserted,  gave  Tilden  5303  plurality.  The 
electoral  votes  of  these  two  states,  however,  were  counted  for 
Hayes,  giving  him  185  electoral  votes  and  Tilden  184.  The 
count  was  not  completed  until  two  days  before  March  4,  1877, 
when  the  new  president  was  to  be  inaugurated.  The  democrats 
insisted  that  the  election  had  been  stolen  from  them  and  there 
was  talk  of  using  force  to  prevent  the  inauguration  of  Hayes. 
Tilden  counselled  submission  and  the  excitement  died  away; 
but  the  democratic  party  has  always  since  alluded  to  the  elec- 
tion of  Hayes  as  "the  crime  of  '76." 

To  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  a  controversy  congress 
passed  an  act  in  1887  which  is  known  as  the  electoral  count  act. 
It  provides  that  the  electors  shall  meet  in  the  several  states  and 
cast  their  ballots  on  the  second  Monday  in  January  following 
their  election.  In  case  of  a  dispute  in  any  state  a  decision  reached 
in  accordance  with  any  law  of  the  state  existing  at  least  six  days 
before  the  time  set  for  the  meeting  of  the  electors  shall  be  bind- 
ing. The  governor  of  each  state  is  required,  as  soon  as  practi- 
cable after  electors  have  been  chosen  and  contests  have  been 
decided,  to  forward  to  the  secretary  of  state  of  the  United  States 
the  certificate  of  their  election,  and  the  governor  must  also  pro- 
vide the  electors  with  three  similar  certificates,  one  of  which 
must  be  transmitted  by  the  electors  to  the  president  of  the  sen- 
ate. Congress  is  required  to  be  in  session  on  the  second  Wednes- 
day in  February  following  each  national  election.  Both  houses 
must  meet  in  joint  session,  presided  over  by  the  president  of  the 
senate,  who  must  open  the  sealed  returns  of  the  electoral  vote 
from  each  state  in  alphabetical  order.  The  vote  must  be  can- 
vassed by  four  tellers,  two  appointed  by  the  senate  and  two  by 
the  house,  and  the  result  announced.  One  senator  and  one 
representative  may  object  in  writing  to  the  reception  of  the  re- 
turn from  any  state.  Objections  must  be  considered  by  each 
house  separately,  and  no  return  given  by  duly  certified  electors 
in  a  state  from  which  only  one  return  has  been  received  can  be 
rejected ;  but  the  two  houses  concurrently  may  reject  a  return 


H4  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

made  by  electors  whose  appointment  has  not  been  certified.  If 
two  returns  are  received  from  the  same  state,  the  return  made 
by  the  certified  electors  must  be  counted.  Should  there  be  a 
dispute  regarding  the  legality  of  the  certification  or  of  the  vote 
cast  by  the  electors,, congress  may  decide  by  concurrent  vote 
which  return  is  valid,  and  if  the  two  houses  cannot  agree,  pref- 
erence shall  be  given  to  the  vote  cast  by  the  electors  whose  ap- 
pointment was  certified  by  the  executive  of  the  state  under  the 
state  seal.  When  objection  has  been  made  to  the  return  from 
a  state,  it  must  be  disposed  of  before  the  count  can  continue. 
No  debate  is  permitted  in  the  joint  session,  and  when  objections 
are  being  considered  by  the  houses  separately  each  senator  and 
representative  is  permitted  to  make  only  one  speech  limited  to 
five  minutes.  Debates  cannot  last  longer  than  two  hours.  The 
joint  session  cannot  adjourn  until  the  count  is  completed  and 
the  result  has  been  declared ;  but  if  a  question  of  procedure  un- 
der the  act  has  arisen  a  recess  may  be  taken  until  ten  o'clock  in 
the  morning  of  the  next  day.  Not  even  a  recess  is  permitted, 
however,  if  the  count  has  not  been  completed  on  the  fifth  day 
after  it  began.  The  announcement  of  the  result  by  the  president 
of  the  senate  constitutes  the  declaration  of  the  result  of  the 
election. 

There  has  been  more  or  less  agitation,  especially  during  the 
last  few  years,  for  a  change  in  the  constitution  which  will  abolish 
the  electoral  college  and  provide  for  the  election  of  the  president 
and  vice-president  by  direct  vote.  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
change  will  be  made,  at  least  in  the  near  future,  because  it  would 
necessitate  uniformity  in  the  qualifications  prescribed  for  voters, 
and  the  diversity  of  opinion  on  this  subject  in  the  various  states 
seems  too  great  to  be  reconciled. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         115 

8.     THE  ELECTORAL   COLLEGE  l 

The  actual  working  of  the  formal  electoral  college  does 
not  attract  popular  interest  —  in  fact  it  takes  place  almost  un- 
noticed except  by  the  presidential  electors  themselves.  The 
character  of  their  work  and  the  legal  provisions  governing  it 
are  sketched  as  follows. 

The  popular  conception  of  the  election  of  the  President  of 
the  United  States  becomes  confused  so  frequently  by  the  im- 
portance attached  to  the  enumeration  of  the  popular  vote,  that 
a  careful  statement  of  the  machinery  by  which  the  President  is 
elected  is  essential.  Although  the  announcement  made  quad- 
rennially, within  a  few  days  after  the  Presidential  election,  of 
the  number  of  votes  cast  for  each  Presidential  nominee  is  usually 
regarded  as  conclusive,  no  actual  election  takes  place  until  the 
second  Wednesday  of  the  February  next  following.  The  Con- 
stitution provides  that  each  State  shall  appoint,  in  the  manner 
to  be  determined  by  the  legislature  of  the  State,  the  Presidential 
Electors,  who  shall  be  equal  in  number  to  the  whole  number  of 
Senators  and  Representatives  to  which  the  State  is  entitled  in 
Congress.  This  number  is  composed  of  two,  representing  the 
number  of  Senators,  and  a  sufficient  number  in  addition  to  give 
one  Elector  for  each  Representative  in  Congress,  proportioned 
on  the  apportionment  of  Representatives  provided  by  law,  or  if 
the  apportionment  has  not  been  made  on  the  last  decennial  cen- 
sus, the  number  provided  under  the  old  apportionment  remains 
in  effect.  No  Senator,  Representative,  or  other  Federal  office- 
holder can  be  appointed  as  an  elector.  It  is  the  universal  cus- 
tom to  appoint  Electors  by  popular  ballot,  though  it  was  for- 
merly the  practice  in  some  of  the  States,  for  the  legislature  to 
select  the  Electors.  The  power  is  given  to  Congress  to  choose 
the  time  of  appointing  the  Electors,  and  the  day  on  which  they 
shall  give  their  votes,  which  day  must  be  uniform  throughout 

1  Gauss,  H.  C.,  The  American  Government.  Hammersly,  L.  R.  &  Co., 
New  York,  1908;  pp.  19-22. 


n6  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  United  States.  The  day  of  choosing  the  Electors  has  been 
fixed  as  the  first  Tuesday  after  the  first  Monday  in  November. 
The  States  are  empowered  to  fill  any  vacancies  which  may  occur 
in  the  list  of  Electors,  and  if  no  election  occurs  the  legislature  may 
set  a  later  date  for  the  election.  In  case  of  a  dispute  as  to  the 
legality  of  an  election  of  any  Elector  or  Electors,  the  determina- 
tion of  the  person  properly  selected  may  be  fixed  by  a  provision 
of  the  State  statutes,  providing  such  a  statute  has  been  passed 
by  the  State  Legislature  six  days  prior  to  the  second  Monday  in 
January,  on  which  day  the  Electors  are  required  to  meet  and 
cast  their  votes.  The  Secretary  of  State  of  each  State  must 
provide  three  copies  of  a  list  certifying  the  names  of  the  persons 
who  have  been  properly  elected  as  Presidential  Electors.  On 
the  second  Monday  in  January,  the  Electors  must  meet  and 
cast  their  ballots  for  President  and  Vice-President  respectively, 
making  three  copies  of  the  number  of  ballots  cast,  and  annex- 
ing to  each  copy  the  certified  list  of  Electors,  furnished  them 
by  the  Secretary  of  State.  These  three  certificates  must  be 
sealed  up  and  a  certification  placed  upon  each  of  its  contents, 
that  it  contains  the  result  of  the  election.  One  of  the  copies  so 
sealed  up  is  entrusted  to  a  person  who  is  appointed  by  the  Efec- 
tors  in  writing  to  be  delivered  by  him  to  the  President  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  before  the  Wednesday  next  en- 
suing. The  second  copy  is  forwarded  by  the  Post  office  to  the 
President  of  the  Senate,  and  the  third  copy  is  deposited  with 
the  Judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court  of  the  district 
in  which  the  election  has  been  held. 

The  two  Houses  of  the  Congress  meet  in  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives Hall,  at  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  of  the  second 
Wednesday  in  February,  following  the  meeting  of  the  Electors, 
to  witness  the  count  of  the  number  of  ballots  thus  cast.  The 
President  of  the  Senate  presides  and  two  members  of  each  House 
are  appointed  as  tellers,  previously  to  the  meeting  in  assemblage. 
The  President  of  the  Senate  opens  the  ballots  returned  by  the 
States  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  the  States,  beginning  with 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         117 

the  letter  "A,"  and  the  result  of  each  ballot  is  announced,  and 
later  the  total  result  is  declared.  Should  there  be  any  objection 
to  the  ballots  as  returned,  challenging  their  legality,  such  ob- 
jection must  be  presented  in  writing  and  signed  by  at  least  one 
Senator  and  one  Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  If 
objections  are  presented  to  the  vote  of  any  State,  the  opening  of 
the  ballots  is  suspended,  and  the  Senate  withdraws  to  consider 
the  objections  in  separate  session.  The  House  also  goes  into  sepa- 
rate session  to  consider  the  objections  presented.  If  only  one 
set  of  ballots  is  returned  from  a  State,  no  vote  may  be  rejected 
unless  the  two  Houses  concur  that  the  Electors  had  not  voted 
regularly.  If  more  than  one  set  of  ballots  are  presented,  those 
are  to  be  counted  which  are  certified  as  regular  by  the  machinery 
provided  by  the  State  to  determine  the  regularity  of  such  ballots, 
but  if  it  appears  that  there  are  two  authorities  claiming  to  pass 
on  the  regularity  of  the  votes,  the  matter  is  settled  by  concurrent 
vote  of  both  Houses  in  separate  session.  If  no  machinery  has 
been  provided  by  the  State  for  the  determination  of  the  regular- 
ity of  the  electoral  ballot,  the  choice  between  contesting  ballots 
is  to  be  by  concurrent  action,  and  in  case  of  disagreement  be- 
tween the  two  Houses,  the  certificate  of  the  Executive  of  the 
State  in  question,  as  to  the  regularity  of  either  of  the  ballots  is 
to  be  accepted. 

During  the  pendency  of  the  question  as  to  the  regularity  of 
the  ballot  of  any  State,  no  action  can  be  taken  on  the  returns  of 
any  other  States.  No  recess  of  Congress  can  be  taken  except 
from  day  to  day,  unless  over  Sunday,  and  after  five  days,  no  re- 
cess at  all  can  be  taken.  Upon  the  completion  of  the  opening  of 
the  ballots  and  the  tabulation  of  the  results,  the  vote  is  declared 
by  the  President  of  the  Senate  as  the  official  announcement  of 
the  election  of  the  President  of  the  United  States.  If  the  returns 
from  any  State  are  not  received  by  the  President  of  the  Senate 
before  the  fourth  Monday  in  January,  the  Secretary  of  State 
of  the  United  States  must  send  a  special  messenger  to  the  Judge 
with  whom  the  third  copy  of  the  election  returns  has  been  de- 


1 1 8  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

posited,  to  secure  that  copy.  When  there  is  no  President  of  the 
Senate  in  Washington  to  receive  the  returns,  the  Secretary  of 
State  is  empowered  to  receive  them. 

9.  THE  ELECTORAL  COLLEGE  —  ITS  DEFECTS1 

The  use  of  an  "electoral  college"  of  the  sort  now  pro- 
vided for  the  election  of  President  has  been  subject  to  severe 
criticism,  especially  in  recent  years.  It  is  felt  there  are  serious 
omissions  in  our  present  system  which  may  give  rise  to  serious 
deadlocks.  Further,  the  people,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the 
"electoral  college"  is  merely  a  recording  machine,  do  not  have 
the  direct  influence  in  the  elections  which  many  wish. 

From  the  outset  of  the  Government  until  1832  great  diversity 
prevailed  in  the  methods  in  use  in  the  different  States  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  electors;  and  repeated  changes  were  made  in  al- 
most every  State  in  the  law  prescribing  the  manner  of  their  selec- 
tion. Inasmuch  as  each  State  Legislature  could  alter  the  method 
at  its  pleasure,  the  mode  of  election  became  aas  various  as  the 
views  of  different  States,  and  as  changeable  as  the  power  and 
ascendency  of  rival  parties."  Whether  the  district  system,  as 
Chief  Justice  Fuller  asserts,  and  as  Madison's  writings  seem  to 
show,  was  considered  by  many  of  the  members  of  the  convention 
of  1787  as  the  most  equitable,  or  whether  there  was  any  consensus 
of  opinion  among  the  delegates  beyond  that  manifested  in  the 
decision  to  entrust  the  appointment  to  each  State  Legislature, 
it  is  easy  to  perceive  the  disadvantages  entailed  by  the  failure  of 
the  fathers  to  agree  upon  a  uniform  plan  for  all  the  States. 
Hardly  had  the  Constitution  been  ratified  by  the  requisite  num- 
ber of  States  ere  contests  arose  over  the  method  of  appointment 
of  electors ;  and  these  continued  with  more  or  less  virulence  un- 
til the  almost  universal  adoption  of  the  general-ticket  system 
in  1832.  .  . 

1  Dougherty,  J.  H.,  The  Electoral  System  of  the  United  States.  G.  P. 
Putnam's  Sons,  New  York;  Ch.  XI,  pp.  281-324. 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         119 

It  would  be  tedious  to  pursue  the  narrative  of  the  numerous, 
almost  kaleidoscopic,  changes  in  the  methods  of  selecting  the  men 
who  were  to  represent  the  States  in  the  choice  of  President  and 
Vice-President.  The  animating  purpose  of  the  "diversified 
and  clashing  expedients"  adopted  by  the  States  was  the  politi- 
cal advantage  of  the  party  or  faction  in  temporary  control  in 
any  State ;  certainly,  whatever  the  intention  of  the  convention 
of  1787,  its  surviving  members  could  not  have  felt  much  gratifi- 
cation in  the  actual  operation  of  this  feature  of  its  work.  .  . 

In  1824  the  electors  were  chosen  by  popular  vote,  by  districts 
and  by  general  ticket,  in  all  the  states  excepting  Delaware, 
Georgia,  Louisiana,  New  York,  South  Carolina,  and  Vermont, 
where  they  were  still  chosen  by  the  legislature.  On  March  13, 
1825,  the  legislature  of  New  York  established  the  district  sys- 
tem, but  not  until  it  had  first  polled  the  sentiment  of  the  people 
by  formally  submitting  the  question  to  them.  The  answer  was 
so  unequivocal  as  to  dispel  all  doubt  of  the  popular  desire  for  an 
election  by  districts.  The  act  provided  for  the  appointment  of 
one  of  the  thirty-four  presidential  electors  in  each  district  by 
the  voters,  and  authorized  the  electoral  college  not  only  to  supply 
vacancies  in  its  body,  but  also  to  appoint  two  additional  electors 
corresponding  to  the  two  senators  from  the  state  in  the  sen- 
ate of  the  United  States.  This  law,  upon  the  recommendation 
of  Van  Buren,  then  governor,  was  superseded  in  1829  by  the  law 
establishing  the  general- ticket  system.  In  1828,  Delaware  and 
South  Carolina  alone  adhered  to  the  legislative  system.  After 
1832  electors  were  chosen  by  general  ticket  in  all  the  states  ex- 
cepting South  Carolina,  where  the  legislature  chose  them  up  to 
and  including  1860.  The  legislative  mode  of  choice  was  adopted 
by  Florida  in  1868,  and  by  Colorado  in  1876,  as  prescribed  by 
section  19  of  the  schedule  to  the  constitution  of  the  state,  which 
was  admitted  into  the  union  August  i,  1876. 

The  abandonment  of  the  district  system  became  inevitable  as 
the  few  states  which  had  employed  it  began  to  realize  the  dis- 
advantages they  suffered  in  comparison  with  the  states  that  had 


I2o  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

adopted  the  general-ticket  system.  Since  the  vote  of  the  state, 
when  cast  in  solido,  swung  the  whole  of  its  electoral  strength  in 
favor  of  the  candidate  of  one  party  or  the  other,  every  other  state 
in  which  that  party  was  ordinarily  dominant  would  naturally 
follow  such  example  and  thereby  enhance  the  influence  and  im- 
portance of  its  leaders  in  party  matters,  and  add  to  the  prestige 
of  the  state  itself.  States  under  the  control  of  the  opposition 
could  not  afford  to  give  their  political  adversaries  such  odds  as 
would  result  from  the  division  of  their  electoral  vote  by  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  district  system,  while  their  enemies  were  casting 
their  electoral  votes  en  bloc.  Divide  et  impera  was  a  maxim  of 
no  application  to  such  contests.  Hence  the  rapid  adoption  of 
the  general-ticket  system,  which  amounts  in  reality  to  a  poll  of 
states  ("The  present  mode  of  choosing  the  president  is,  though 
not  generally  so  called,  an  election  by  states.")  and  in  which 
the  voice  of  the  minority  is  suppressed.  One  unhappy  conse- 
quence is  the  creation  in  every  state  of  a  class  of  political  leaders, 
often  persons  occupying  no  official  place,  whose  influence  in 
achieving  party  successes  has  made  them  potent  in  party  coun- 
cils and  party  appointments.  .  . 

One  evil  result  of  the  general-ticket  system,  one  great  objec- 
tion to  the  present  electoral  system  is  that  it  absolutely  circum- 
scribes the  power  and  the  rights  of  the  individual  vqter.  He 
cannot  now  vote  for  the  man  of  his  choice  for  president,  but  must 
vote  for  electors.  There  may  be  two  sets  of  electors  representing 
two  different  parties  before  the  people,  but  he  may  not  be  in 
favor  of  either,  and  would  prefer  to  cast  his  vote  for  a  third; 
yet  he  has  no  power  to  do- it.  It  would  be  impossible  for  him 
alone  in  the  state  in  which  he  lives  to  put  candidates  for  electors 
in  the  field  who  would  vote  for  the  man  of  his  choice.  That 
can  only  be  done  by  an  organized  party,  which  may  have  no  con- 
siderable vote  in  the  state  in  which  he  lives,  though  it  may  be 
strong  in  other  states.  As  an  illustration :  In  1856,  thousands 
of  men  in  the  southern  states  were  absolutely  deprived  of  the 
right  of  voting  for  president  and  vice-president,  because  no 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         121 

electoral  tickets  for  Fremont  and  Dayton  had  there  been  put  in 
the  field. 

"In  effect,  the  electoral  system  absolutely  deprives  the  voter 
of  his  power  to  vote  for  men  of  his  choice  for  president  and  vice- 
president  unless  there  are  enough  of  his  way  of  thinking  in  the 
same  state  to  meet  in  convention  and  nominate  electors  to  repre- 
sent their  views.  Such  a  system  can  scarcely  be  called  free  or 
republican.  No  system  deserves  that  name  which  does  not 
enable  the  individual  voter  to  cast  his  vote  for  the  men  of  his 
choice,  whether  anybody  else  in  the  same  state  votes  for  them  or 
not.  The  electoral  system  makes  the  convention  or  caucus  in- 
dispensable in  all  cases  and  everywhere,  for  the  individual  voter 
cannot  give  effect  to  his  vote,  or  give  to  it  moral  political  signifi- 
cance, unless  there  are  others  who  will  act  in  concert,  that  is, 
convention,  with  him  in  the  nomination  of  candidates  for  elec- 
tors." (Morton,  from  speech  in  senate,  1873.)  It  is  destruc- 
tive of  all  incentive  to  the  development  of  an  opposition  party 
organization  in  a  state  in  which  one  of  the  two  great  parties  is 
constantly  predominant.  The  district  system  or  an  apportion- 
ment system  would  probably  have  led  to  the  formation  of  an 
antagonistic  party  and  to  active  political  work  in  districts  which 
seemed  to  be  auspicious  fields  of  operation.  In  many  of  the 
southern  states  in  the  decades  preceding  the  Civil  War  there  was 
no  Whig  or  Republican  organization,  because  such  an  organiza- 
tion had  no  chance  of  success  in  the  state  at  large.  The  educa- 
tional influence  of  discussion  in  district  centres  was  altogether 
sacrificed  and  a  potent  factor  against  the  tyranny  of  a  majority 
party  utterly  lost.  In  a  government  by  discussion  (to  borrow 
a  phrase  from  the  late  Walter  Bagehot)  social  and  political  de- 
velopment is  seriously  retarded ;  the  injury  which  a  community 
thus  persistently  dominated  by  one  party  sustains  is  almost  in- 
calculable. The  baneful  consequences  of  the  general-ticket 
system  were  witnessed  in  less  degree,  during  the  free  silver  cam- 
paigns, in  communities  where  the  advocates  of  the  gold  stand- 
ard, however  numerous,  had  no  chance  of  exerting  a  direct  in- 


122  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

fluence  upon  the  choice  of  presidential  electors,  because  they 
were  out- voted  by  the  friends  of  silver.  A  system  of  voting  that 
would  permit  the  expression  of  minority  views,  and  hence  give 
a  more  faithful  picture  of  opinion  through  a  state,  would  have 
more  promptly  checked  unsound  tendencies  in  finance.  Gov- 
ernment by  majority  was  never  intended  to  nullify  minority 
sentiment;  the  general-ticket  system  not  only  renders  such 
sentiment  inactive,  but  tends  altogether  to  repress  it. 

In  states  in  which  opposing  party  organizations  flourish  and 
where  each  is  alternately  successful,  what  have  been  styled  the 
"close"  states,  the  temptation  to  fraud  receives  powerful  ac- 
cession under  the  general-ticket  system.  Almost  every  critic 
of  the  electoral  system  has  commented  upon  this  obvious  danger. 
A  fraudulent  ballot  cast  at  a  presidential  election  in  New  York, 
said  an  able  writer,  (Richard  H.  Dana,  Jr.,  in  117  N.  A.  R.)  in 
1873,  "affects  thirty-five  electors,  or  nearly  one  fifth  of  the  whole 
number  requisite  to  the  choice  of  a  president.  In  Rhode  Island 
such  a  ballot  affects  only  three  electors,  or  less  than  one  sixtieth 
of  a  majority  of  the  whole  electoral  college.  Here  is  a  direct 
bounty  on  the  concentration  of  fraudulent  efforts  of  all  kinds 
in  the  large  states,  whereby  not  only  a  vicious  influence  of  fear- 
ful intensity  is  thrown  into  the  scale  of  a  national  election,  but 
all  ,the  local  elements  of  corruption,  ever  sufficiently  formidable 
in  our  most  populous  states,  are  powerfully  reinforced ; "  whereas 
"  under  the  district  system,  on  the  other  hand,  a  fraud  upon  the 
ballot  box  can  affect  but  one  elector,  unless  two  electors  at  large 
should  be  chosen  in  each  state,  in  which  case  but  three  electors 
at  the  most  could  be  affected  by  a  given  fraud." 

It  is  hard  to  conceive  of  a  system  more  easily  adapted  than  the 
general-ticket  system  to  the  successful  perpetration  of  fraud  or 
offering  more  seductive  inducements  to  its  commission.  .  . 

The  densely  populated  States,  upon  the  general-ticket  system, 
constantly  tend  to  nullify  the  vote  of  the  smaller  commonwealths. 
It  has  several  times  happened  in  the  history  of  the  nation  that 
the  State  of  New  York  has  been  the  determining  factor  in  a  presi- 


Convention  and  Election  of  President         123 

dential  campaign  —  the  " pivotal"  State;  in  fact,  with  the 
exception  of  the  campaigns  of  1868  and  1876,  no  election  since 
1856  has  gone  in  favor  of  a  party  that  has  not  carried  New  York. 
The  tendency  which  has  been  so  marked  for  two  generations, 
and  is  increasingly  evident,  towards  the  concentration  of  people 
in  large  municipalities,  will  make  such  States  even  more  influen- 
tial in  the  future,  their  big  electoral  vote  more  and  more  decisive, 
the  temptation  to  fraud  more  seductive,  and  the  profit  from  its 
successful  perpetration  more  certain.  .  .  New  York  to-day 
wields  thirty-nine  electoral  votes,  which  is  the  equivalent  of 
thirteen  of  the  smallest  States,  and  if,  under  the  system  at  pres- 
ent in  vogue,  a  transferred  vote  of  five  to  six  hundred  will  place 
it  in  the  Democratic  or  the  Republican  column,  —  and  no  greater 
change  would  have  taken  the  State  from  Cleveland  and  given  it 
to  Elaine  in  1884,  —  the  incentive  to  prostitution  and  abuse  of 
the  suffrage  could  not  be  rendered  stronger ;  and  even  in  an  ideal 
community,  where  the  purity  of  the  ballot-box  is  untarnished, 
the  vote  of  the  big  State,  like  that  of  the  large  stockholder,  counts 
rather  in  a  geometrical  than  an  arithmetical  progression.  A 
plurality  or  majority  in  one  section  may,  it  is  true,  at  times  be 
counteracted  by  one  in  another  section,  and  thus  the  net  result 
be  a  rude  approximation  to  fairness,  taking  the  country  as  a 
whole;  but  this  theory  of  averages  may  not  work  constantly, 
and  the  steady  suppression  of  minority  conviction  in  a  state  is 
an  undisputed  evil.  .  . 

This  study  of  the  methods  that  have  been  employed  by  the 
State  Legislatures  in  the  appointment  of  electors  shows  the 
eminent  desirability  of  a  uniform  system.  The  evils  of  the  gen- 
eral-ticket system  become  more  and  more  potent  and  alarming. 
Although  they  were  graphically  depicted  in  1826,  in  the  report 
of  Ben  ton's  committee  to  the  Senate  and  of  McDuffie's  com- 
mittee to  the  House,  it  was  not  possible  then  to  appreciate  the 
mighty  force  wielded  by  a  great  State  in  crushing  the  opposition 
of  a  dozen  smaller  commonwealths.  Dickerson,  of  New  Jersey, 
in  1824,  thought  it  a  dangerous  portent  that  in  an  election  by 


124  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

electors  six  great  states  might  control  the  election  and  completely 
nullify  the  power  or  influence  of  eighteen  others;  to-day  one 
great  state  exercises  far  more  influence,  for  its  decision  may  in- 
volve the  destinies  of  all  forty-five.  The  general-ticket  system 
is  at  present  universal,  but  the  control  over  the  method  of  ap- 
pointment which  the  present  constitution  gives  to  the  states 
may  result  in  future  diversity.  It  cannot  be  foreseen  what 
powerful  impulsions  may  hereafter  arise  to  cause  some  state 
legislature  to  disfranchise  the  people  and  revest  itself  with  the 
power  of  appointment  or  confer  it  upon  some  small  coterie, 
"the  directors  of  a  bank,"  or  some  other  board  or  body  which 
shall  thus  speak  the  voice  of  the  state.  Uniformity  can  be  per- 
manently assured  only  by  an  amendment  to  the  national  con- 
stitution. A  constitutional  provision  fixing  territorial  units 
for  electoral  votes,  or  apportioning  the  electoral  vote  of  a  state 
in  the  ratio  of  its  popular  vote  among  the  different  candidates, 
would  have  prevented  many  of  the  numerous  factional  and  party 
struggles  so  common  in  earlier  history,  the  aim  of  which  was  so 
to  control  electors  by  skilfully  timed  changes  in  the  mode  of  ap- 
pointment as  to  subserve  the  interests  of  individuals  and  organi- 
zations. Time  has  also  shown  the  force  of  some  of  the  objections 
urged  against  the  district  system.  The  device  of  the  "gerry- 
mander," as  Senator  Edmunds,  .  .  .  only  a  few  years  ago,  said, 
is  being  more  and  more  employed,  both  in  respect  of  congres- 
sional representation  and  in  the  election  of  state  legislatures.1 
While  the  district  system,  properly  safeguarded,  would  insure 
minorities  some  degree  of  representation,  lessen  fraudulent  vot- 
ing, and  aid  in  awakening  opposing  parties  within  a  common- 
wealth, no  system  yet  suggested  would  achieve  these  ends  so 
completely  as  would  the  apportionment  system. 

^'Perils  of  our  National  Elections,"   12  Forum,   691.      The  article 
gives  a  picture  of  the  redistricting  of  Alabama,  February  13,  1891. 


V.   SENATORIAL  ELECTIONS 

I.     CONSTITUTIONAL    AND    LEGAL    PROVISIONS    CONCERNING    THE 
ELECTION    OF    UNITED    STATES    SENATORS 

The  legal  provisions  controlling  the  election  of  senators  are 
only  partly  contained  in  the  Federal  constitution.  Congress  has 
executed  the  power  granted  it  to  "make  or  alter  .  .  .  regula- 
tions" by  the  states  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  are  to 
carry  on  these  elections  and  the  states  themselves  have  added 
further  rules. 

(a)    United  States  Constitution 

ART.  I.  Sec.  3.  The  senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
composed  of  two  Senators  from  each  State,  chosen  by  the  legis- 
lature thereof,  for  six  years;  and  each  Senator  shall  have  one 
vote. 

Immediately  after  they  shall  be  assembled  in  consequence 
of  the  first  election,  they  shall  be  divided  as  equally  as  may  be 
into  three  classes.  The  seats  of  the  Senators  of  the  first  class 
shall  be  vacated  at  the  expiration  of  the  second  year;  of  the 
second  class,  at  the  expiration  of  the  fourth  year,  and  of  the 
third  class,  at  the  expiration  of  the  sixth  year,  so  that  one-third 
may  be  chosen  every  second  year ;  and  if  vacancies  happen  by 
resignation  or  otherwise,  during  the  recess  of  the  legislature  of 
any  state,  the  executive  thereof  may  make  temporary  appoint- 
ments until  the  next  meeting  of  the  legislature,  which  shall  then 
fill  such  vacancies. 

No  person  shall  be  a  Senator  who  shall  not  have  attained  to 
the  age  of  thirty  years,  and  been  nine  years  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  and  who  shall  not,  when  elected,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that 
State  for  which  he  shall  be  chosen.  .  . 

125 


126  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Sec.  4.  The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections 
for  Senators  and  Representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each 
State  by  the  legislature  thereof ;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any 
time  by  law  make  or  alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places 
of  choosing  Senators.  .  . 

Sec.  5.  Each  house  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elections,  re- 
turns, and  qualifications  of  its  own  members,  and  a  majority  of 
each  shall  constitute  a  quorum  to  do  business;  but  a  smaller 
number  may  adjourn  from  day  to  day,  and  may  be  authorized 
to  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members,  in  such  manner 
and  under  such  penalties,  as  each  house  may  provide.  .  . 

(b)   United  States  Statutes  l 

Sec.  14.  The  Legislature  of  each  State  which  is  chosen  next 
preceding  the  expiration  of  the  time  for  which  any  Senator  was 
elected  to  represent  such  State  in  Congress  shall,  on  the  second 
Tuesday  after  the  meeting  and  organization  thereof,  proceed 
to  elect  a  Senator  in  Congress. 

Sec.  15.  Such  election  shall  be  conducted  in  the  following 
manner :  Each  House  shall  openly,  by  a  viva  voce  vote  of  each 
member  present,  name  one  person  for  Senator  in  Congress  from 
the  State,  and  the  name  of  the  person  so  voted  for,  who  receives 
a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  votes  cast  in  each  House, 
shall  be  entered  on  the  journal  of  that  House  by  the  Clerk  or 
Secretary  thereof ;  or  if  either  House  fails  to  give  such  majority 
to  any  person  on  that  day,  the  fact  shall  be  entered  on  the  jour- 
nal. At  twelve  o'clock  meridian  of  the  day  following  that  on 
which  proceedings  are  required  to  take  place  as  aforesaid,  the 
members  of  the  two  Houses  shall  convene  in  joint  assembly,  and 
the  journal  of  each  House  shall  then  be  read,  and  if  the  same  per- 
son has  received  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  in  each  House,  he 
shall  be  declared  duly  elected  Senator.  But  if  the  same  person 
has  not  received  a  majority  of  the  votes  in  each  House,  or  if 

1  Title  II,  Ch.  i,  Rev.  Stat.  U.S. 


Senatorial  Elections  127 

either  House  has  failed  to  take  proceedings  as  required  by  this 
section,  the  joint  assembly  shall  then  proceed  to  choose,  by  a 
viva  voce  vote  of  each  member  present,  a  person  for  Senator;  and 
the  person  who  receives  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  of  the  joint 
assembly,  a  majority  of  all  the  members  elected  to  both  Houses 
being  present  and  voting,  shall  be  declared  duly  elected.  If  no 
person  receive  such  majority  on  the  first  day,  the  joint  assembly 
shall  meet  at  twelve  o'clock  meridian  of  each  succeeding  day 
during  the  session  of  the  Legislature,  and  shall  take  at  least  one 
vote  until  a  Senator  is  elected. 

Sec.  1 6.  Whenever,  on  the  meeting  of  the  Legislature  of 
any  State,  a  vacancy  exists  in  the  representation  of  such  State  in 
the  Senate,  the  Legislature  shall  proceed  on  the  second  Tuesday 
after  meeting  and  organization,  to  elect  a  person  to  fill  such  va- 
cancy, in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  preceding  section  for  the 
election  of  a  Senator  for  a  full  term. 

Sec.  17.  Whenever,  during  the  session  of  the  Legislature  of 
any  State,  a  vacancy  occurs  in  the  representation  of  such  State 
in  the  Senate,  similar  proceedings  to  fill  such  vacancy  shall  be 
had  on  the  second  Tuesday  after  the  Legislature  is  organized 
and  has  had  notice  of  such  vacancy. 

Sec.  1 8.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Executive  of  the  State 
from  which  any  Senator  has  been  chosen,  to  certify  his  election 
under  the  seal  of  the  State,  to  the  President  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States. 

Sec.  19.  The  certificate  mentioned  in  the  preceding  section 
shall  be  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  state. 

(c)  A  State  Law  on  the  Election  of  United  States  Senator 1 

The  act  of  assembly  of  January  n,  1867,  regulating  the  elec- 
tion of  United  States  Senators  is  as  follows,  viz. : 

Section  i.  Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  each  House  of  the  Legis- 
lature shall  appoint  one  teller,  and  nominate  at  least  one  person 

1  Smull's  Legislative  Handbook.     (Pennsylvania),  1909 ;  p.  914. 


128  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

to  fill  the  office  of  Senator,  to  represent  this  State  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  and  at  least  two  days  previous  to  the  joint 
meeting,  hereinafter  mentioned,  communicate  to  the  other  House 
the  names  of  the  persons  so  appointed  and  nominated. 

Section  2.  At  the  hour  of  three  P.M.,  on  the  second  Tuesday 
after  the  meeting  and  organization  of  the  Legislature,  which 
shall  be  chosen  next  preceding  the  expiration  of  the  time  for 
which  any  Senator  was  elected  to  represent  this  State  in  Con- 
gress, to-wit :  On  the  third  Tuesday  of  January,  if  the  Legis- 
lature shall  have  organized  previous  to  the  second  Tuesday,  but 
if  not  so  organized,  then  on  the  second  Tuesday  after  the  organi- 
zation thereof,  not  counting  the  day  on  which  the  Legislature 
was  organized,  each  House  shall  openly,  by  a  viva  voce  vote  of 
each  member  present,  name  one  person  for  Senator  in  Congress, 
from  this  State ;  and  the  name  of  the  person  so  voted  for,  who 
shall  have  a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  votes  cast  in  each 
House,  shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal  of  each  House,  by  the  clerk 
thereof ;  but  if  either  House  shall  fail  to  give  such  majority  to 
any  person,  on  said  day,  that  fact  shall  be  entered  on  the  Jour- 
nal; at  twelve  o'clock  meridian,  of  the  day  following  that  on 
which  the  proceedings  are  required  to  take  place  as  aforesaid, 
the  members  of  the  two  Houses  shall  convene  in  joint  assembly, 
and  the  Journal  of  each  House  shall  then  be  read,  and  if  the  same 
person  shall  have  received  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  in  each 
House,  such  person  shall  be  declared  duly  elected  Senator,  to 
represent  this  State  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States ;  but 
if  the  same  person  shall  not  have  received  a  majority  of  the  votes 
in  each  House,  or  if  either  House  shall  have  failed  to  take  pro- 
ceedings, as  required  by  this  act,  the  joint  assembly  shall  then 
proceed  to  choose,  by  a  viva  voce  vote  of  each  member  present, 
a  person  for  the  purpose  aforesaid,  and  the  person  having  a  ma- 
jority of  all  the  votes  of  the  said  joint  assembly,  a  majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  to  both  Houses  being  present  and  vot- 
ing, shall  be  declared  duly  elected ;  and  in  case  no  person  shall  re- 
ceive such  majority  on  the  first  day,  the  joint  assembly  shall 


Senatorial  Elections  129 

meet  at  twelve  o'clock  meridian  of  each  succeeding  day,  during 
the  session  of  the  Legislature,  and  take  at  least  one  vote,  until 
a  Senator  shall  be  elected. 

Section  3.  Whenever,  on  the  meeting  of  the  Legislature,  a  va- 
cancy shall  exist  in  the  representation  of  this  State  in  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States,  the  Legislature  shall  proceed,  on  the 
second  Tuesday  after  the  commencement  and  organization  of 
its  session,  to  elect  a  person  to  fill  such  vacancy,  in  the  manner 
hereinbefore  provided  for  the  election  of  a  Senator  for  a  full 
term;  and  if  a  vacancy  shall  happen  during  the  session  of  the 
Legislature,  then  on  the  second  Tuesday  after  the  Legislature 
shall  have  notice  of  such  vacancy. 

Section  4.  When  the  election  shall  be  closed,  as  aforesaid,  the 
president  of  the  convention  shall  announce  the  person,  who  shall 
have  received  a  majority  of  votes  aforesaid,  to  be  duly  elected  a 
Senator,  to  represent  this  State  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States;  and  he  shall,  in  the  presence  of  the  members  of  both 
Houses,  sign  four  several  certificates  of  the  election,  attested  by 
the  tellers;  one  of  which  certificates  shall  be  transmitted,  by 
the  president  of  the  convention,  to  the  Governor  of  this  Com- 
monwealth, one  to  the  person  so  elected,  and  the  remaining  two 
shall  be  preserved  among  the  records  and  entered  at  length  on 
the  Journals  of  each  House. 

Section  5.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Governor,  immediately 
after  receiving  the  certificate  of  the  election  of  any  Senator  to 
certify  his  election,  under  the  seal  of  the  State,  which  certificate 
shall  be  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  of  State. 

2.     A  CORRUPT  SENATORIAL  ELECTION  l 

Senatorial  elections  have  been  subject  to  more  abuse  than 
any  others  involving  national  offices.  Deadlocks  and  corrup- 
tion have  often  either  kept  states  unrepresented  or  have  caused 
their  misrepresentation  in  our  national  upper  house. 

1  Connolly,  C.  P.,  "  The  Story  of  Montana."      McClure's.     Nov.,  1906; 
Vol.  28,  No.  i,  pp.  41-43  and  p.  27. 
K 


Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

This  excerpt  describes  the  last  day  of  the  struggle  in  January, 
1899,  between  Marcus  Daly  and  William  A.  Clark  for  the  office 
of  United  States  Senator  from  Montana.  Portions  of  the  nar- 
rative are  here  transposed. 

The  morning  of  Saturday,  January  28th,  dawned  crisp  and 
clear.  The  sunlight  flashed  on  the  hills  surrounding  the  capitol, 
making  the  great  combs  on  the  mountain-tops  glisten  like  dia- 
mond crescents. 

A  funeral  pall  hung  over  the  Daly  forces,  while  the  Clark  men, 
drawn  and  haggard  from  the  strain  of  the  long  struggle,  found 
relief  in  the  fact  that  the  die  was  cast  and  no  power  on  earth 
could  stay  Clark's  vindication.  W.  A.  Clark's  face  was  like  that 
of  a  man  crucified  by  suffering.  His  red  eyes  looked  like  the 
windows  of  a  building  within  which  a  conflagration  raged.  Men 
who  had  barely  slept  for  days  and  weeks  had  retired  toward 
morning  to  snatch  a  few  hours  of  rest.  .  . 

How  would  that  courageous  band  of  Daly  men  act  their  part 
now?  They  were  sullen,  uncompromising,  defiant  foes.  Like 
sailors  who  know  the  ship  will  sink  within  an  hour,  they  stood 
with  their  arms  folded.  It  was  strange  that  on  this  morning  no 
Clark  man  felt  elation.  It  was  not  in  the  air.  The  battle  had 
been  too  bloody.  They  had  these  poor  voters  now,  like  rabbits 
in  a  warren,  and  would  slaughter  without  mercy ;  but  there  was 
no  exultation. 

As  early  as  eight  o'clock,  crowds  of  men  and  women  could  be 
seen  moving  toward  the  temporary  capitol.  At  first  they  came 
in  broken,  irregular  lines,  and  then  in  streams.  Not  one-twen- 
tieth of  them  could  gain  admission  to  the  hall,  but  they  stood 
outside  the  windows  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the 
streets  were  impassably  blocked.  Clark  did  not  appear  at  the 
legislative  hall,  but  John  B.  Wellcome,  Charlie  Clark,  A.  J. 
Steele,  John  S.  M.  Neill,  and  A.  J.  Davidson  were  there. 
The  joint  session  met,  the  Senate  filing  in  as  the  hour  of  ten 
arrived. 

The  first  order  of  business  after  the  reading  of  the  minutes 


Senatorial  Elections 

was  the  balloting  for  Senator.  The  roll  was  called  amid  breath- 
less excitement,  and  the  same  vote  was  recorded  as  on  the  pre- 
vious day.  Then  for  the  first  time  in  the  session  a  second  ballot 
was  demanded.  E.  C.  Day,  the  leader  of  the  Clark  forces  on 
the  floor,  moved  that  the  assembly  take  a  second  ballot.  State 
Senator  Stanton,  of  Cascade,  a  Conrad  Democrat,  moved  as  a 
substitute  that  the  joint  assembly  dissolve  for  the  day.  The 
clerk  called  the  roll  on  the  substitute,  and  it  was  lost  by  thirteen 
votes.  The  Clark  forces  had  won  their  first  open  victory  during 
the  session.  The  roll  on  the  second  ballot  then  began.  .  . 

When  the  name  of  State  Senator  John  H.  Geiger,  who  had 
been  seated  in  the  place  of  Whiteside  two  days  before,  was  called, 
he  rose  from  his  seat  and  marched  to  the  space  in  front  of  the 
Speaker's  desk.  Geiger  was  the  member  who  afterwards  ad- 
mitted he  had  found  an  envelop  containing  $1,100  in  his  room 
which  had  been  thrown  over  his  transom  during  the  night.  His 
was  the  first  Republican  name  on  the  roll,  and  his  action  would 
determine  whether  the  Republicans  had  gone  over  to  Clark  or 
still  stood  true.  Geiger's  hair  had  been  freshly  oiled  and  plas- 
tered down,  and  he  had  all  the  appearance  of  one  who  realized 
he  was  to  play  a  role  that  would  become  historic. 

"  Before  casting  my  vote,  I  would  like  to  have  your  attention 
for  a  few  moments,"  he  said.  "  I  will  not  attempt  to  make  any 
speech  —  If  I  wanted  to  I  could  not  do  it.  But  I  realize  that 
what  is  taking  place  in  this,  probably  the  most  extraordinary 
assembly  that  has  ever  assembled  on  the  American  soil,  is  a 
grave  and  serious  thing.  I  have  studied  this  matter  over  and 
have  come  to  a  conclusion  of  my  own.  I  stand  here  under  pecul- 
iar circumstances.  I  am  proud  to  say  I  belong  to  the  minority 
of  this  body.  The  first  vote  I  cast  in  this  assembly,  I  cast  for 
what  I  considered  one  of  the  leading  young  war-horses  of  the 
Republican  party ;  but  now  the  time  has  arrove  —  (laughter  and 
shouts)  —  arriven  —  (uproar  of  laughter,  after  which  Geiger 
desisted  from  the  attempt  to  gather  up  his  scattered  sentence). 
I  believe  when  I  cast  my  vote  I  am  only  doing  what  I  ought  to 


132  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

do,  and  I  say  to  you  now,  and  I  defy  the  wretch  or  whoever 
he  may  be,  man,  woman  or  child  (continued  laughter),  that  I 
am  about  or  going  to  be  doing  otherwise.  I  say  to  you,  gentle- 
men, that  I  am  doing  this  with  hands  clean,  pockets  empty 
(Geiger  dramatically  tapped  his  pockets  amid  increasing 
volleys  of  laughter)  and  conscience  clear,  and  I  am  also  doing 
it  at  the  mandate  and  request  of  the  Republican  caucus,  in 
which  I  did  not  vote.  I  now  cast  my  vote  for  W.  A.  Clark,  of 
Butte." 

Geiger  closed  his  speech  amid  applause,  hisses,  and  cries  of 
'traitor.' 

When  the  name  of  Marcyes,  whose  vote  had  been  negotiated 
for  $10,000,  was  called,  he  read  a  petition,  signed,  he  announced, 
by  many  Republicans  of  his  county,  praying  him  to  vote  for 
W.  A.  Clark.  .  . 

Representative  E.  D.  Matts  was  next  on  the  roll-call.  In  the 
legislature  of  1893,  he  had  eloquently  denounced  Clark  as  a 
bribe-giver.  So  far  he  had  not  once  spoken  during  the  session. 
As  he  rose  everyone  gazed  expectantly  in  his  direction. 

"  I  have  refrained  from  saying  anything  upon  this  contest  dur- 
ing the  entire  session,"  he  began,  "  and  my  sole  reason  has  been 
that  it  would  be  utterly  futile  for  anyone  to  talk  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  bribery  if  the  men  are  here  to  sell  themselves.  There 
has  been  but  one  practical  question,  and  that  is :  How  many  men 
are  purchaseable  in  this  legislative  assembly  at  any  price?  I 
did  not  think  there  were  as  many  as  there  are.  I  have  always 
opposed  the  election  of  Mr.  Clark  because  I  believe  him  to  be 
a  bribe-giver;  because  his  methods  are  vile  and  venal.  .  . 

"  You  have  not  heard  one  third  of  the  testimony.  You  will 
not  listen.  There  is  evidence  connecting  many  members  of  this 
body  directly  with  the  crime  of  bribery.  This  must  be  exploited 
to  the  world,  and  the  honor,  the  integrity  and  the  credit  of  the 
State  must  be  disgraced  by  such  investigation.  I  am  sorry  to 
see  this  man  go  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  like  Richard 
the  Third,  over  the  bodies  of  disgraced  men.  I  am  sorry  it  is 


Senatorial  Elections  133 

necessary  for  the  manhood  of  Montana  to  be  dishonored  in  order 
that  any  man  may  attain  his  end." 

As  the  names  of  the  various  members  were  called,  applause 
and  hisses  were  heard.  The  excitement  became  intense. 
Charges  of  bribery  were  bandied  back  and  forth  upon  the  floor. 
The  presiding  officer  rapped  again  and  again  for  order,  but  in 
vain.  As  the  men  voted  they  were  hissed  and  in  one  or  two  cases 
the  price  the  voter  had  received  was  shouted  at  him  in  round 
figures.  .  . 

The  name  of  the  Speaker  of  the  House,  Henry  C.  Stiff,  was 
called.  Stiff  said : 

"  I  am  not  so  vain  as  to  suppose  that  anything  I  may  say  at 
this  time  will  change  the  result  of  this  ballot.  I  do  not  believe 
if  an  election  is  declared  here  to-day  it  will  be  a  valid  election. 
I  know  there  are  some  men  here  who  are  honestly  casting  their 
ballots  for  William  A.  Clark,  —  some  of  the  Lewis  and  Clark 
delegation,  —  because  of  the  unquestioned  fact  that  the  senti- 
ment of  this  county,  whether  it  be  right  or  wrong,  is  in  favor  of 
his  election.  There  are  others  voting  for  him,  no  doubt,  be- 
cause of  their  association  with  him  in  years  long  gone  by,  when 
they  knew  him  to  be  a  better  man  than  he  is  to-day.  Those 
gentlemen  are  so  fearfully  in  the  minority  that  they  can  hardly 
be  taken  into  consideration.  The  question  has  been  asked  on 
this  floor  and  elsewhere  in  this  city :  How  do  you  actually  know 
that  bribery  has  been  resorted  to  in  this  election  ?  I  say  that 
I  know  this  much :  the  only  reason  that  I  myself  am  not  casting 
my  vote  under  a  bribe  is  because  I  refused  to  accept  it  —  more 
money  than  I  ever  expect  to  have.  All  the  millions  that  W.  A. 
Clark  possesses,  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  could  not  induce  me 
to  cast  my  ballot  for  him.  I  can  face  my  constituency  and  say 
that  corruption,  the  gross  corruption  of  this  legislature,  has 
never  touched  me." 

The  roll-call  was  finally  finished  and  the  clerk  announced  the 
vote  for  Clark  as  fifty-four.  Four  of  the  Republicans  remained 
true.  Eleven  had  gone  over  to  Clark,  and  his  election  was 


1 34  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

declared  by  the  presiding  officer.  Then  came  one  wild, 
prolonged  cheer  from  the  galleries,  and  the  crowd  filed  into  the 
street. 

Helena  turned  out  in  force  that  night  to  celebrate  the  success 
of  her  candidate.  Handbills  were  distributed  during  the  after- 
noon. They  read : 

THERE  WILL  BE  A  HOT  TIME.  GRAND  CELEBRATION  TO- 
NIGHT TO  ENDORSE  THE  ELECTION  OF  HON.  W.  A.  CLARK 
TO  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE.  PROCESSION.  FIREWORKS. 
MEETING  AT  THE  AUDITORIUM.  EVERYBODY  WELCOME. 

At  eight  o'clock,  the  procession  formed  on  upper  Main  Street, 
and  soon  after  started  on  its  march.  For  days  the  saloons  and 
hotels  of  Helena  had  been  ordering  by  telegraph  quantities  of 
champagne  from  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis,  Spokane,  Seattle,  Port- 
land, and  San  Francisco.  All  during  Saturday  afternoon  and 
night  most  of  the  bars  of  Helena  were  free  to  the  populace  and 
no  one  was  allowed  to  order  anything  but  champagne.  Clark's 
champagne  bill  alone  for  that  night  was  said  by  one  of  his 
leaders  to  be  $30,000. 

Forty-seven  votes  had  been  procured  within  eighteen  days 
at  a  total  cost  of  $431,000,  not  including  $30,000  turned  over  to 
the  State  Treasury  by  Senator  Whiteside.  The  memorial  which 
was  afterward  addressed  to  the  United  States  Senate  charged 
that: 

"  For  the  purpose  of  securing  the  support  of  members  of  said 
legislative  assembly  to  vote  for  and  elect  said  William  A.  Clark, 
William  A.  Clark  paid  to  C.  C.  Bowlen  the  sum  of  $10,000 ;  to 
Jerry  Connolly,  $5,000;  to  Thomas  P.  Cullen,  $15,000;  to  C. 
O.  Gruwell,  amount  unknown;  to  W.  J.  Hannah,  $15,000;  to 
S.  S.  Hobson,  $50,000;  to  A.  W.  Mahan,  $10,000;  to  Samuel 
L.  Mitchell,  $25,000;  to  Ben  D.  Phillips,  $25,000;  to  W.  E. 
Tierney,  $15,000 ;  to  D.  G.  Warner,  $15,000 ;  to  W.  W.  Beasley, 
$10,000;  to  Powell  Black,  $5,000;  to  J.  H.  Geiger,  $15,000; 
to  Stephen  Bywater,  $15,000;  to  W.  C.  Eversole,  $10,000;  to 


Senatorial  Elections  135 

B.  J.  Fine,  $10,000;  to  Robert  Flinn,  $10,000;  to  H.  H.  Carr, 
$6,000 ;  to  J.  H.  Gillette,  $10,000 ;  to  H.  M.  Hill,  $10,000 ;  to 
A.  J.  Jaqueth,  $10,000 ;  to  Dr.  J.  H.  Johnson,  $5,000 ;  to  F.  W. 
Kuphal,  $4,000;  to  W.  H.  Lockhart,  $5,000;  to  C.  C.  Long, 
$10,000;  to  T.  H.  Luddy,  $10,000;  to  G.  W.  Magee,  $17,000; 
to  G.  F.  Marcyes,  $15,000;  to  H.  W.  McLaughlin,  $20,000; 
to  E.  V.  More,  $10,000 ;  to  L.  C.  Parker,  $10,000 ;  to  R.  M. 
Sands,  $15,000;  to  M.  Shovlin,  $7,006;  and  to  E.  P.  Woods, 
$7,ooo." 

That  the  following  sums  were  offered  to  other  members  of  the 
legislature : 

"  To  J.  T.  Anderson,  $25,000;  to  J.  R.  McKay,  $15,000;  to 
G.  H.  Stanton,  $10,000;  to  Henry  C.  Stiff,  $20,000;  to  E.  H. 
Cooney,  $20,000 ;  to  H.  A.  Gallwey,  $10,000 ;  to  Edwin  Norris, 
G.  T.  Paul,  and  D.  E.  Metlin,  jointly,  $50,000;  to  T.  F.  Nor- 
moyle,  $15,000;  to  P.  G.  Sullivan,  $15,000;  to  R.  J.  Watson, 
$10,000 ;  and  to  W.  J.  Bonner,  $10,000.  .  ." 

The  legislators  went  down  one  by  one,  were  fought  for  man  by 
man.     This  man-hunting  had  its  intoxication,  and  the  chase 
once  begun,  it  made  its  own  impetus  and  developed  into  a  kind 
of  frenzy.     If  a  man  had  a  weakness  in  his  nature  or  an  exigence  , 
in  his  circumstances,  Clark's  generals  found  it.     His  debts,  his  1 
indiscretions  in  conduct,  his  best  sentiments,  even,  were  turned  | 
into  effective  weapons  against  him.     His  business  was  threat- 
ened;  his  friendships  were  menaced;    his  wife,  his  sister,  and 
even  his  mother  were  often  made  intercessors  for  his  tempters. 
His  old  associates,  his  creditors,  his  family  doctor,  were  put  upon 
his  trail. 

The  emotional  strain  brought  to  bear  on  men  was  so  heavy, 
the  promises  held  out  to  them  were  so  alluring,  and  the  reward 
of  honesty  seemed  so  bleak,  that  no  anchor  could  hold  a  man  ex- 
cept the  needs  of  his  soul.  If  he  lived  by  bread  alone,  he  went 
with  the  wind. 


136  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

3.  WHY  WE  SHOULD  HAVE  POPULAR  ELECTION  OF  SENATORS  1 

It  is  generally  accepted  that  we  have  outgrown  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Constitution  on  the  election  of  senators.  As 
is  usually  the  case  with  Anglo-Saxon  peoples,  when  institu- 
tions outgrow  laws  there  is  a  development  which  while  keeping 
the  form  of  the  old  law  changes  the  content  of  the  rule.  Such  a 
change  has  occurred  in  the  election  of  the  President,  a  similar 
one  is  in  process  in  the  election  of  United  States  senators. 

How  senators  shall  be  chosen,  has  become  a  question  which 
the  people  of  the  United  States  must  frankly  face.  For,  that 
the  phrases  of  the  Constitution  have  long  since  ceased  accurately 
to  describe,  still  less  to  determine,  the  process  of  their  election, 
no  one  can  doubt  who  has  noted  how  senators  in  recent  years 
have  reached  their  office,  or  who  has  grasped  the  import  of  the 
movement,  which,  during  the  past  thirty  years,  has  taken  on 
different  forms,  has  employed  different  means  and  methods, 
but  has  ever  kept  the  same  spirit  and  aim  —  a  determination  that 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States  shall  be  made  responsible  to  the 
people. 

The  route  first  attempted  was  by  way  of  an  amendment  to 
the  Constitution,  providing  for  the  election  of  senators  by  the 
direct  vote  of  the  people.  Only  under  urgent  prompting  from 
outside  did  Congress  accord  much  attention  to  this  project ;  for 
years  it  received  little  more  than  perfunctory  lip-service;  yet, 
so  insistent  became  the  demand,  that  five  times  and  by  ever- 
increasing  majorities,  the  House  of  Representatives  has  passed 
a  resolution  proposing  such  an  amendment.  But  all  progress 
toward  the  goal  by  this  route  has  always  been  blocked  by  the 
Senate's  stolid  resistance.  In  despair  of  success  upon  this  line, 
recourse  has  been  had  to  the  optional,  but  hitherto  untried, 
method  of  proposing  amendments ;  state  legislatures  have  been 

1  Haynes,  G.  H.,  The  Election  of  Senators.  Henry  Holt  &  Co.,  New  York, 
1906;  p.  259  et  seq.  Reprinted  by  permission. 


Senatorial  Elections  137 

calling  upon  Congress  to  summon  a  convention  for  the  express 
purpose  of  initiating  this  amendment.  In  one  form  or  another, 
the  legislatures  of  thirty-one  States  —  more  than  the  full  two- 
thirds  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  —  have  communicated  to 
Congress  their  formal  approval  of  the  proposed  change  in  the 
Constitution;  indeed,  if  the  votes  in  the  House  be  taken  as  a 
fair  representation  of  the  will  of  the  people  in  their  constituencies, 
then  only  two  States  in  the  Union  have  failed  to  give  their  in- 
dorsement. Along  this  line,  then,  the  movement  has  reached  a 
point  where  it  needs  but  the  putting  of  these  requests  into  a  com- 
mon form  and  the  marshaling  of  this  scattering  fire  of  resolutions 
into  one  concerted  volley  of  demand,  to  constitute  a  mandate 
which  the  Constitution  gives  Congress  no  warrant  but  to  heed. 
That  the  House  would  offer  no  obstruction,  every  precedent 
makes  clear.  Would  the  Senate  still  demur,  and  thus  invite 
disaster  upon  itself  ? 

Meantime,  a  vast  deal  of  ingenuity  has  been  devoted  to  at- 
tempts to  reach  popular  control  of  senatorial  elections  by  some 
other  route  than  the  amending  of  the  Constitution.  While  the 
form  of  election  by  the  legislature  is  retained,  its  spirit  has  been 
radically  changed.  There  is  not  a  State  in  the  Union  to-day 
where  members  of  the  legislature  proceed  to  the  election  of  a 
senator  with  that  enlightened  independence,  that  freedom  of  in- 
dividual discretion  in  the  choice  from  which  the  fathers  antici- 
pated such  beneficent  results.  Everywhere  the  legislators  ap- 
proach the  task  under  the  dominance  of  party,  and  in  every 
State  where  one  well-disciplined  party  is  in  power,  the  result  of 
the  election  is  a  certainty  even  before  the  legislature  convenes. 
Not  only  has  party  spirit  claimed  this  election  for  its  own,  but 
the  party's  choice  for  senator  is  often  made  before  the  members 
of  the  legislature  are  elected,  and  is  obtruded  upon  that  body 
by  the  state  convention.  Already,  in  about  a  third  of  the  States, 
either  under  party  rules,  or  in  accordance  with  the  explicit  pro- 
visions of  state  law,  direct  primaries  name  the  candidates,  and 
wherever  a  strong  party  is  supreme,  this  nomination  is  tanta- 


138  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

mount  to  an  election.  Even  in  the  most  conservative  States, 
the  movement  for  the  direct  primary  is  making  distinct  progress. 
In  four  States,  provision  is  made  for  a  popular  "election,"  car- 
ried out  under  the  supervision  of  officials,  not  of  the  party,  but 
of  the  State ;  an  election  as  complete  in  all  its  details  and  for- 
malities as  is  that  of  the  governor,  yet  which  is  as  void  of  legal 
power  to  bind  the  legislature  in  the  real  election  of  senator  as 
would  be  the  resolutions  adopted  by  a  boys'  debating  society. 

What,  then,  is  the  outcome  to  be  ?  That  depends  not  a  little 
upon  the  temper  and  action  of  the  Senate  itself.  If  Senators 
have  foresight  enough  to  discern  the  cloud  while  it  is  yet  but 
the  size  of  a  man's  hand,  the  gathering  tempest  of  discontent 
may  be  averted.  For,  in  comparison  with  a  rule-ridden  House 
that  has  ceased  to  be  a  deliberative  body,  a  Senate  that  gave 
evidence  of  feeling  itself  responsible  to  public  opinion,  and  of 
striving  to  discover  and  serve  the  country's  broader  interests, 
might  so  win  the  people's  confidence  that  agitation  for  change 
in  its  mode  of  election  would  lose  its  force.  But  is  legislative 
election  under  present  conditions  calculated  to  yield  a  Senate 
capable  of  such  self-regeneration  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Senate  continues  for  a  few  years  more  arrogantly  to  refuse  the 
people  an  opportunity  to  pass  upon  the  mode  of  their  election ; 
if,  meantime,  relying  upon  the  impregnable  defenses  built  about 
their  office  by  legislative  election,  senators  persist  in  neglecting 
or  perverting  measures  of  the  utmost  public  concern,  while  not 
a  few  of  them  are  devoting  their  best  energies  to  the  protection 
of  private  interests ;  if  state  legislatures,  heedless  of  the  earnest 
and  manifold  efforts  made  by  the  people  to  bring  them  to  a  sense 
of  their  high  responsibility  to  the  State  in  the  selection  of  sena- 
tors, persist  in  using  their  legal  freedom  of  choice,  not  for  the 
selection  of  the  best  men,  but  of  men  whose  presence  in  the  Sen- 
ate is  a  disgrace  to  the  State  and  a  menace  to  popular  govern- 
ment —  then  the  new  century  will  still  be  young  when  the  peo- 
ple will  find  themselves  forced  to  make  choice  between  two  alter- 
natives ;  either  they  must  redouble  their  efforts  to  force  the  new 


Senatorial  Elections  139 

wine  of  democracy  into  the  old  bottles  of  the  elective  process 
prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  or,  frankly  casting  aside  that 
ancient  mode  of  election  as  outworn,  for  better,  for  worse,  they 
must  take  the  choice  of  senators  into  their  own  eager,  strong, 
but  unskilled  hands.  .  . 

The  grounds  which  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  advanced 
for  their  belief  that  the  election  of  senators  by  legislatures  would 
produce  beneficent  effects  upon  the  Senate  as  a  lawmaking  body 
have  for  the  most  part  become  obsolete.  Legislative  election 
in  other  departments  has  passed  entirely  out  of  vogue  and  out 
of  practice.  It  was  not  to  be  thought  of  that  the  framers  of  the 
constitution  in  the  latest  great  federal  state,  the  Australian 
Commonwealth,  would  follow  ancient  American  precedent  in 
this  regard.  If  it  is  claimed  that  the  change  to  popular  election 
would  remove  a  great  bulwark  against  centralization  in  the  or- 
ganized resistance  of  the  state  legislatures,  the  reply  is  that  no 
other  influence  has  conduced  so  directly  to  the  subordination  of 
state  and  local  government  to  the  national  party  organizations 
as  has  this  process  of  electing  senators,  and  legislatures  thus 
dominated  are  little  likely  to  impose  sentiments  opposed  to  cen- 
tralization upon  the  senators  of  their  choice.  The  protest  that 
under  popular  elections  the  Senate  would  fail  to  secure  repre- 
sentation of  the  States  as  such,  is  academic  and  fallacious.  The 
state  legislature  is  but  the  agent ;  the  body  of  voters,  the  princi- 
pal. The  governor  personifies  the  State  in  most  of  its  dealings 
with  other  States  and  with  the  national  government;  he  cer- 
tainly is  no  less  the  representative  of  the  State  by  virtue  of  his 
deriving  his  authority  directly  from  the  people  than  he  would  be 
if  he  were  elected  by  the  legislature.  No  logical  principle  un- 
derlies the  assumption  that  only  election  by  the  legislature  can 
authorize  a  man  to  represent  the  statehood  of  Massachusetts,  or 
of  New  York,  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

As  to  the  improvement  which  popular  election  would  bring 
to  the  quality  of  the  Senate,  it  is  best  not  to  entertain  too  op- 
timistic anticipations.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  lowering 


140  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

of  the  tone  in  the  Senate  in  recent  years  is  not  to  be  attributed 
solely  to  the  method  of  election  —  which  in  form  has  remained 
unchanged  —  but  to  general  influences  which  have  lowered  and 
commercialized  American  politics  throughout  the  system.  Popu- 
lar elections  would  present  no  insuperable  barrier  to  the  dema- 
gogue and  to  the  corruptionist.  Indeed,  it  is  a  debatable  ques- 
tion, whether  he  would  not  find  his  path  easier  and  more  direct 
than  at  present.  Moreover,  the  shortening  of  senatorial  careers 
—  which  the  history  of  other  elective  offices  shows  would  be  an 
almost  inevitable  consequence  of  popular  election  —  would  tend 
seriously  to  impair  the  Senate's  prestige  and  power.  The  chief 
grounds  for  hope  that  popular  election  would,  nevertheless,  im- 
prove the  tone  of  the  Senate,  are  three :  (i)  No  candidate  could 
secure  the  election  unless  he  possessed  the  confidence  and  could 
enlist  the  support  of  a  plurality  at  least  of  all  those  sufficiently 
interested  to  take  part  in  a  great  national  election.  (2)  In 
the  openness  of  the  direct  primary,  and  in  the  publicity  for  the 
weeks  preceding  a  popular  election,  the  people  would  have  am- 
ple opportunity  for  passing  a  far  more  correct  judgment  upon 
senatorial  candidates,  than  is  possible  in  the  murky  atmosphere 
which  often  surrounds  an  election  in  the  legislature.  At  present, 
the  case  is  closed  as  soon  as  a  candidate,  who  may  never  have 
been  thought  of  before,  can  negotiate  a  majority  from  some  few 
score  of  legislators;  under  popular  elections  every  candidate's 
record  and  qualifications  would  be  under  discussion  for  weeks 
before  the  election,  and  if  the  popular  verdict  proved  to  be  not 
in  accord  with  the  evidence,  the  blame  could  be  shifted  by  the 
voters  upon  no  one  else.  (3)  Although  the  phrase-maker,  the 
demagogue,  or  even  the  corruptionist  or  corporation  tool,  might 
capture  a  seat  in  the  Senate,  democracy  would  learn  valuable 
lessons  from  such  betrayals  of  confidence,  and  would  correct  its 
mistakes  with  more  promptness  and  permanence  than  would  a 
state  legislature. 

The  decisive  advantages  of  the  change  to  popular  election  of 
senators,  however,  would  be  found  in  its  effects,  not  upon  the 


Senatorial  Elections  141 

federal  government,  but  upon  the  individual  States.  However 
plausibly  the  apologist  for  the  present  system  may  argue  that 
this  very  method  of  election  by  legislatures  has  remained  un- 
changed since  the  time  when  it  produced  ideal  results,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  causes  of  the  present  abuses  must  lie  deeper  than 
the  mere  mode  of  election,  he  cannot  deny  that  our  state  legis- 
latures have  sunk  to  a  deplorably  low  level,  and  that  one  of  the 
most  potent  causes  of  this  deterioration  which  has  unfitted  the 
legislatures  for  the  performance  of  this  function,  by  what  may 
seem  like  a  paradox,  has  been  the  very  exercise  of  it.  The  fact 
that  this  election  of  an  important  federal  official  is  devolved  upon 
the  members  of  the  state  legislature  blurs  the  issues  in  the  voter's 
mind,  distorts  his  political  perspective,  makes  him  tolerant  of 
much  inefficient  legislative  service  on  the  part  of  the  man  who 
will  vote  for  his  party's  candidate  for  the  Senate.  To  the  legis- 
lature, as  a  body,  it  brings  what  is  liable  at  any  time  to  prove  a 
task  as  difficult  and  distracting  as  it  is  incongruous  with  normal 
legislative  work ;  to  the  State  it  brings  interruption,  it  may  be 
prevention  of  needed  legislation,  the  domination  of  all  issues  by 
the  national  political  parties  and  the  tyranny  of  the  boss,  who 
almost  inevitably  seeks  to  impose  either  some  tool  or  his  own 
venal,  or,  at  best,  narrowly  partisan,  self  upon  the  commonwealth, 
as  the  "representative  of  its  statehood"  in  the  United  States 
Senate.  To  be  rid  of  this  would  be  an  achievement  well  worth 
the  struggle,  the  earnest  of  far  greater  progress  in  the  future. 

4.     THE  OREGON   METHOD  OF   ELECTING  UNITED   STATES 
SENATORS 1 

Oregon  has  adopted  an  ingenious  plan  by  which  the  election 
of  senators  is  made  practically  a  popular  one.  Under  this  sys- 
tem it  has  even  occurred  that  a  legislature  controlled  by  one 
party  has  elected  a  senator  of  the  opposite  party  who  had  re- 
ceived the  support  of  the  people  at  the  previous  election. 

1  Bourne,  Jr.,  J.,  "  Popular  Government  in  Oregon."  Outlook,  Vol.  96, 
p.  324  et  seq.,  Oct.  8,  1910. 


142  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Every  candidate  for  the  legislature  may  "subscribe  to  one  of 
two  statements,  but  if  he  does  not  so  subscribe  he  shall  not  on 
that  account  be  debarred  from  the  ballot.  It  will  be  seen,  there- 
fore, that  three  courses  are  open  to  him.  He  may  subscribe  to 
Statement  No.  i,  as  follows: 

I  further  state  to  the  people  of  Oregon,  as  well  as  to  the  peo- 
ple of  my  legislative  district,  that  during  my  term  of  office  I 
shall  always  vote  for  that  candidate  for  United  States  Senator  in 
Congress  who  has  received  the  highest  number  of  the  people's  votes 
for  that  position  at  the  general  election  next  preceding  the  elec- 
tion of  a  Senator  in  Congress  without  regard  to  my  individual 
preference. 

Or  he  may  subscribe  to  Statement  No.  2,  as  follows : 

During  my  term  of  office,  I  shall  consider  the  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple for  United  States  Senator  in  Congress  as  nothing  more  than 
a  recommendation  which  I  shall  be  at  liberty  to  wholly  disre- 
gard if  the  reason  for  doing  so  seems  to  me  to  be  sufficient. 

Or  he  may  be  perfectly  silent  on  the  election  of  United  States 
Senator.  It  is  entirely  optional  with  the  candidate. 

The  law  further  provides  that  United  States  Senators  may  be 
nominated  by  their  respective  parties  in  the  party  primaries,  and 
the  candidate  receiving  the  greatest  number  of  votes  thereby 
becomes  the  party  nominee.  Then,  in  the  general  election  the 
party  nominees  are  voted  for  by  the  people,  and  the  individual 
receiving  the  greatest  number  of  votes  in  the  general  election 
thereby  becomes  the  people's  choice  for  United  States  Senator. 

Notwithstanding  that  our  primary  election  law  embodying 
these  statements,  particularly  Statement  No.  i,  was  passed  by  a 
popular  vote  of  approximately  56,000  for  to  16,000  against,  the 
opponents  of  the  law  charged  that  the  people  did  not  know  what 
they  were  doing  when  they  voted  for  it.  Therefore  the  advo- 
cates of  the  election  of  Senators  by  the  people  and  of  the  enforce- 
ment of  Statement  No.  i  submitted  to  the  people  under  the 
initiative  in  1908  the  following  bill : 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  people  of  the  state  of  Oregon : 


Senatorial  Elections  143 

Section  i.  That  we,  the  people  of  the  state  of  Oregon,  hereby 
instruct  our  Representatives  and  Senators  in  our  Legislative 
Assembly,  as  such  officers,  to  vote  for  and  elect  the  candidates 
for  United  States  Senators  from  this  State  who  receive  the 
highest  number  of  votes  at  our  general  elections. 

Although  there  was  no  organized  campaign  made  for  the  adop- 
tion of  this  bill  other  than  the  argument  accompanying  its  sub- 
mission, while  the  opponents  of  the  primary  law  assailed  it  ve- 
hemently, the  basic  principle  of  Statement  No.  i  and  the  elec- 
tion of  United  States  Senators  by  the  people  were  again  indorsed 
by  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  a  popular  vote  of  69,668  for  it  to 
21,162  against  it,  or  by  nearly  three  and  one-half  to  one. 

I  may  here  give  a  concrete  illustration  of  this  law's  operation. 
Both  my  colleague,  Senator  Chamberlain,  and  myself  were  selected 
by  the  people  and  elected  by  the  Legislature  under  the  pro- 
vision of  this  Act.  Opponents  of  popular  government,  and  es- 
pecially of  the  election  of  United  States  Senators  by  a  direct  vote 
of  the  people,  have  bitterly  assailed  Statement  No.  i  of  our  law 
because  a  Legislature  overwhelmingly  Republican  elected  my 
colleague,  who  was  a  candidate  selected  by  the  Democratic 
party  and  nominated  by  the  whole  electorate  of  the  State  as  the 
people's  choice  of  our  State  for  United  States  Senator.  Upon 
reflection  I  think  every  intelligent  man  who  is  honest  with  him- 
self must  concede  that  this  fact,  instead  of  being  the  basis  of 
a  criticism,  is  the  highest  kind  of  evidence  as  to  the  efficacy 
of  the  law,  and  every  advocate  of  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators  by  a  popular  vote  must  realize  that  Oregon  has  evolved 
a  plan,  through  its  Statement  No.  i  (provision  of  its  pri- 
mary law),  wherein,  in  effect,  the  people  enjoy  the  privilege 
of  selecting  their  United  States  Senators,  and,  through  the 
crystallization  of  public  opinion  the  legislative  ratification  of 
their  action. 

The  Oregon  Legislature  consists  of  ninety  members,  thirty 
in  the  Senate  and  sixty  in  the  House,  forty-six  making  the  neces- 
sary majority  on  full  attendance  for  the  election  of  United  States 


144  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Senator.  Fifty-one  members  out  of  ninety  of  the  Legislature 
which  elected  my  colleague,  Senator  Chamberlain,  were  sub- 
scribers to  Statement  No.  i,  making  on  joint  ballot  a  majority  of 
six  out  of  a  total  of  ninety  members.  All  of  these  fifty-one  mem- 
bers subscribed  to  Statement  No.  i  pledge  voluntarily,  and  it 
was  so  subscribed  to  by  them  from  a  personal  belief  in  the  desir- 
ability of  the  popular  election  of  United  States  Senators  and  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  for  themselves  from  the  electorate  pre- 
ferment in  the  election  to  the  office  sought ;  the  consideration  in 
exchange  for  such  preferment  was  to  be  by  them,  as  the  legally 
constituted  representatives  of  the  electorate  in  their  behalf,  the 
perfunctory  confirmation  of  the  people's  selection  of  United 
States  Senator  as  that  choice  might  be  ascertained  under  the  pro- 
visions of  the  same  law  by  which  the  legislators  themselves  se- 
cured nomination  to  office. 

To  further  illuminate  the  situation,  I  will  state  that  in  the 
primaries  held  in  April,  1908,  H.  M.  Cake  received  the  Republi- 
can nomination  for  United  States  Senator,  and  my  colleague, 
Senator  Chamberlain,  then  Governor  of  the  State,  received  the 
Democratic  nomination  for  United  States  Senator.  At  the  gen- 
eral election  in  June  Senator  Chamberlain  defeated  Mr.  Cake, 
notwithstanding  the  State  was  overwhelmingly  Republican, 
thereby  developing  from  the  Democratic  candidate  into  the  peo- 
ple's choice  for  United  States  Senator.  The  normal  Republican 
majority  in  Oregon,  I  think,  is  from  15,000  to  20,000.  With  full 
recognition  of  Governor  Chamberlain's  ability  and  fitness  for 
the  office,  the  fact  that  for  nearly  six  years  he  made  the  best 
Governor  Oregon  ever  had,  and  considering  that  undoubtedly 
he  is  the  most  popular  man  in  our  State,  I  deem  it  but  just  to 
the  law,  and  a  proper  answer  to  the  criticism  of  enemies  of  the 
law  that  it  destroys  party  lines  and  integrity,  to  state  that  in 
my  opinion,  Senator  Chamberlain  received  the  votes  of  several 
thousand  Republican  enemies  of  the  law,  who  believed  that  in 
selecting  Governor  Chamberlain,  a  Democrat,  they  would  pre- 
vent a  Republican  Legislature  from  ratifying  the  people's  selec- 


Senatorial  Elections  145 

tion,  obeying  the  people's  instructions,  and  electing  as  United 
States  Senator  the  individual,  regardless  of  party,  that  the  peo- 
ple might  select  for  that  office.  Thus  they  hoped  to  make  the 
primary  law  and  Statement  No.  i  odious,  and  sought  to  create 
what  they  thought  would  be  an  impossible  condition  by  forcing 
upon  a  Republican  Legislature  for  confirmation  the  popularly 
designated  Democratic  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate. 
They  failed  to  realize  that,  greater  than  party,  and  infinitely 
greater  than  any  individual  the  people's  choice  becomes  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  principle  and  of  the  law,  that  the  intelligence 
and  integrity  of  the  whole  electorate  of  the  State,  as  well  as  the 
integrity  and  loyalty  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  were 
at  stake,  and  from  any  honorable  view-point  not  only  would 
the  mere  intimation  of  the  possibility  of  the  Legislature,  or  any 
member  of  the  Legislature,  failing  conscientiously  to  fulfill  his 
pledge  or  loyally  to  obey  the  instruction  of  the  people  be  an  in- 
sult to  the  individual  members  of  the  Legislature,  but  it  would 
also  be  an  insult  to  the  intelligence,  independence,  and  patriotism 
of  the  Oregon  electorate  to  intimate  that  they  would  permit  such 
action  to  go  unnoticed  or  without  holding  the  culprit  to  a  rigid 
responsibility  for  his  treason. 

No  oath  could  be  more  sacred  in  honor,  no  contract  more 
binding,  no  mutual  consideration  more  definite,  than  is  contained 
in  this  Statement  No.  i  pledge,  and  no  parties  to  a  contract  could 
be  of  more  consequence  to  government  and  society  than  the 
electorate  upon  the  one  side  and  its  servants  upon  the  other. 
Under  the  United  States  Constitution  there  can  be  no  penalty 
attached  to  the  law.  The  legislator  breaking  his  sacred  pledge 
cannot  be  imprisoned  or  fined,  hence  he  is  doubly  bound  by  honor 
to  redeem  his  voluntary  obligations.  Yet  there  were  efforts 
made  to  dishonor  our  State  and  our  public  servants.  But,  al- 
though the  greatest  possible  strain  was  placed  upon  our  law,  to 
the  credit  of  fifty-one  subscribers  of  Statement  No.  i  in  that 
Legislature  be  it  said  that  every  one  of  those  subscribers  voted 
in  accordance  with  his  solemn  obligation.  But,  notwithstanding 


146  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  people  of  the  State  had  passed  under  the  initiative  the  bill 
I  have  referred  to  instructing  all  the  members  of  the  Legislature 
to  vote  for  the  people's  choice  for  United  States  Senator,  not  a 
single  member  of  the  Legislature  obeyed  said  instructions  except 
the  Statement  No.  i  subscribers. 


VI.  ELECTIONS  TO  THE  HOUSE  or  REPRESENTATIVES  AND 
TO  THE  STATE  LEGISLATURE 

I.     THE    ABUSE    OF    APPORTIONMENTS    AND    SINGLE    MEMBER 
DISTRICTS  1 

Splitting  up  our  voting  population  into  small  constituencies 
has  given  us  representation  of  all  districts,  but  has  often  re- 
sulted in  the  misrepresentation  of  public  opinion.  The  evils 
of  the  old  general  ticket  system  by  which  a  bare  majority  was 
enough  to  give  a  party  all  the  representatives  as  a  rule  have  been 
removed  by  the  district  system.  On  the  other  hand  it  happens 
occasionally  that  a  minority  of  the  electors  get  a  majority  of 
the  representatives.  Neither  the  old  system  nor  the  new  gives 
true  party  representation. 

A  VERY  apparent  weakness  and  injustice  of  the  district  system 
is  the  opportunity  it  gives  a  majority  party  to  crush  out  and  dis- 
franchise the  minority.  This  is  seen  flagrantly  in  the  "gerry- 
mander." But,  even  where  the  system  is  not  thus  abused,  it  is 
almost  wholly  a  matter  of  chance  whether  the  opinions  of  the 
people  are  justly  expressed  or  not.  This  danger  was  not  immi- 
nent under  the  earlier  conditions  of  representation, as  has  already 
been  shown,  when  electoral  districts  were  natural  units  and  the 
problem  of  representation  was  the  federation  of  local  communi- 
ties. But  now  that  party  lines  are  drawn  through  the  midst  of 
every  community,  it  nearly  always  happens  that  one  party  gains 
in  the  elections  an  unjust  proportion  of  representatives  at  the 
expense  of  others.  From  the  theory  of  the  matter  it  is  possible 
to  exclude  minority  parties  altogether,  and  to  give  the  entire 

1  Commons,  J.  R.,  Proportional  Representation,  t  Macmillan,  New  York, 
1907 ;  p.  48  et  seq.,  p.  80  et  seq. 

147 


148  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

legislative  body  to  the  majority.  Suppose  a  legislature  to  be 
composed  of  forty  members  elected  from  forty  districts,  and  that 
the  popular  vote  of  the  political  parties  stands  respectively 
120,000  and  100,000.  If  the  districts  are  so  arranged  as  to  have 
5,500  votes  each,  and  the  parties  happen  to  be  divided  in  the  dis- 
tricts in  the  same  proportion  as  at  large,  we  should  have  in  each 
district  a  vote  respectively  of  3,000  and  2,500.  All  of  the  forty 
candidates  of  the  majority  would  be  elected,  and  the  minority 
wholly  excluded.  An  extreme  result  like  this  seems  improbable, 
but  it  sometimes  occurs. 

Again,  it  may  happen,  and  often  does,  that  a  minority  of  the 
popular  vote  obtains  a  majority  of  the  representatives.  In  the 
case  assumed,  parties  may  have  been  divided  in  the  several  dis- 

tricts as  follows  :  — 

u  o° 
^\i«  Party  A 

Majority  of  100  in  25  districts,  2,800  X  25  =  70,000  votes. 
Minority  of  1,500  in  15  districts,  2,000  X  15  =  30,000  votes. 
»  100000 


100,000 
Party  B 

Minority  of  100  in  25  districts,  2,700     X  25  =  67,500  votes. 
Majority  of  1,500  in  15  districts,  3,500  X  15  =  52,500  votes. 

120,000 

In  this  assumed  case,  Party  A,  with  a  total  of  100,000  votes, 
obtains  twenty-five  representatives  ;  while  Party  B,  with  a  total 
of  120,000  votes,  obtains  only  fifteen  representatives. 

Where  a  system  offers  in  theory  such  fruitful  opportunities, 
it  is  too  much  to  expect  party  managers  to  refrain  from  using 
them.  Consequently,  the  district  system,  combined  with  party 
politics,  has  resulted  in  the  universal  spread  of  the  gerrymander. 
It  is  difficult  to  express  the  opprobrium  rightly  belonging  to  so 
iniquitous  a  practice  as  the  gerrymander  ;  but  its  enormity  is  not 
appreciated,  just  as  brutal  prize-fighting  is  not  reprobated,  pro- 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     149 

viding  it  be  fought  according  to  the  rules.  Both  political  parties 
practise  it,  and  neither  can  condemn  the  other.  They  simply 
do  what  is  natural :  —  make  the  most  of  their  opportunities 
as  far  as  permitted  by  the  constitution  and  system  under  which 
both  are  working.  The  gerrymander  is  not  produced  by  the  in- 
iquity  of  parties,  it  is  the  outcome  of  the  district  system.  If  repre- 
sentatives are  elected  in  this  way,  there  must  be  some  public 
authority  for  outlining  the  districts.  And  who  shall  be  the  judge 
to  say  where  the  line  shall  be  drawn  ?  Exact  equality  is  impos- 
sible, and  who  shall  set  the  limits  beyond  which  inequality  shall 
not  be  pressed  ?  Every  apportionment  act  that  has  been  passed 
in  this  or  any  other  country  has  involved  inequality;  and  it 
would  be  absurd  to  ask  a  political  party  to  pass  such  an  act,  and 
give  the  advantage  of  the  inequality  to  the  opposite  party. 
Consequently,  every  apportionment  act  involves  more  or  less  of 
the  gerrymander.  The  gerrymander  is  simply  such  a  thoughtful  j 
construction  of  districts  as  will  economize  the  votes  of  the  party  | 
in  power  by  giving  it  small  majorities  in  a  large  number  of  dis- 
tricts, and  coop  up  the  opposing  party  with  overwhelming  majori- 
ties in  a  small  number  of  districts.  This  may  involve  a  very 
distortionate  and  uncomely  "scientific"  boundary,  and  the  join- 
ing together  of  distant  and  unrelated  localities  into  a  single  dis- 
trict ;  such  was  the  case  in  the  famous  original  act  of  Governor 
Gerry  of  Massachusetts,  whence  the  practice  obtained  its  am- 
phibian name. 

But  it  is  not  always  necessary  that  districts  be  cut  into  dis- 
torted shapes  in  order  to  accomplish  these  unjust  results.  A 
map  of  all  the  congressional  and  legislative  districts  of  the  United 
States  would  by  no  means  indicate  the  location  of  all  the  out- 
rageous gerrymanders.  In  fact,  many  of  the  worst  ones  have 
been  so  well  designed  that  they  come  close  within  all  constitu- 
tional requirements.  The  truth  is,  the  district  system  itself  is 
so  faulty  that  constitutional  restrictions  cannot  correct  it.  The 
national  Congress  has  attempted  to  do  so  by  requiring  the  dis- 
tricts for  congressional  elections  to  be  compact  and  of  contiguous 


150  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

territory,  and  of  nearly  equal  population.  But  the  law  is  every- 
where disregarded.  Parties  are  compelled  to  disregard  it,  for  a 
gerrymander  in  a  Democratic  State  can  be  nullified  only  by  a 
gerrymander  in  a  Republican  State. 

As  a  result  of  the  district  system,  the  national  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives is  scarcely  a  representative  body.  .  . 

Perhaps,  taking  the  nation  as  a  whole,  the  gerrymanders  of 
the  United  States  in  congressional  elections  do  not  affect  the 
average  result ;  since,  as  already  shown,  both  parties  enact  them, 
and  the  work  of  a  Democratic  gerrymander  in  one  State  is  offset 
by  that  of  a  Republican  gerrymander  in  another. 

State  legislatures,  on  the  other  hand,  show  greater  inequalities, 
seeing  that  the  party  in  power  outlines  the  districts  for  the  en- 
tire constituency,  and  there  are  no  offsetting  gerrymanders.  .  . 

We  have  seen  how  unequally  parties  are  represented  in  the 
city,  State,  and  nation.  Our  representative  system  was  con- 
trived to  represent  not  parties,  but  sections.  The  efforts 
toward  its  improvement  have  been  directed  not  toward  equality 
of  party  representation,  but  equality  of  district  representation. 
Congressional  statutes  and  State  constitutions  require  the  dis- 
tricts to  be  of  "equal"  population.  But  this  is  not  enforced. 
South  Carolina  has  a  "white"  district  as  low  as  134,369  (Census 
1890);  but  the  sole  "black"  and  Republican  district,  the 
seventh,  contains  216,512  population.  In  Texas  the  districts 
range  from  102,000  to  210,000;  in  Kansas  from  167,000  to 
278,000;  and  in  Pennsylvania  from  131,000  to  310,000  (both  ex- 
tremes in  the  city  of  Philadelphia).  In  Illinois  in  1892  the  four 
Chicago  districts  had  an  average  population  of  297,980,  while 
the  sixteen  country  districts  averaged  only  164,914. 

State  and  municipal  representation  is  still  more  unequal.  In 
New  York  City  the  State  assembly  districts  are  identical  with 
the  aldermanic  districts.  Says  the  Report  of  the  New  York 
Senate  Committee  on  cities:  "in  the  common  council,  as  well 
as  in  the  legislature,  a  voting  constituency  of  7,000  has  the  same 
representation  as  a  like  constituency  of  24,000.  The  principle 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     151 

of  numerical  equality,  therefore,  finds  no  application  whatever 
in  the  common  council  of  New  York  City.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  principle  of  locality  representation.  The  interests 
of  the  first  and  second  districts  are  in  all  things  'practically 
alike;  the  total  vote  of  the  two  districts  is  14,498.  The  in- 
terests of  the  twenty-third  district  are  in  many  regards  distinct 
from  those  of  the  first  and  second.  .  . 

We  have  now  been  able  to  follow  the  various  evil  phases  of 
recent  American  political  life  directly  or  remotely  to  their  root 
in  the  system  of  electing  single  representatives  from  limited  dis- 
tricts, —  a  system  which  we  have  inherited  unchanged  through 
six  centuries  of  political  and  social  evolution.  At  the  present 
time,  when  political  parties  based  on  social  questions  divide  the 
people  and  seek  representation,  we  are  using  a  system  of  repre- 
sentation based  on  locality.  The  political  parties  inevitably 
seize  upon  this  machinery  and  use  it  for  party  ends.  Thus  vio- 
lently distorted,  it  represents  neither  sections  nor  parties.  In- 
stead, it  has  divided  the  people  in  every  district  into  two  camps, 
each  dictated  by  its  own  party  machine  and  spoilsmen. 

2.     GERRYMANDER   OF   STATE   LEGISLATIVE  DISTRICTS  1 

Every  State  legislature  which  makes  a  redistribution  of  leg- 
islative or  congressional  districts  is  under  a  great  temptation 
to  use  the  opportunity  to  strengthen  the  party  position.  By 
putting  sections  strongly  in  favor  of  the  opposition  into  one 
district,  the  chance  of  defeat  of  the  majority  in  the  remaining 
districts  may  be  lessened  —  or  a  small  majority  of  the  oppo- 
sition in  one  district  may  be  overcome  by  adding  to  it  a  few 
townships  strongly  of  the  party  of  the  majority.  The  follow- 
ing extract  shows  the  conflicting  interests  at  work  in  a  redis- 
tribution of  State  legislature  districts. 

MR.  SPEER.  The  proposition  reported  by  your  Committee 
on  Apportionment  increases  the  Senate  from  thirty-two  to  fifty 
members  and  apportions  the  districts  so  that  thirty-two  will  be 

1  Revised  Record  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  New  York.  1894; 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  1083,  1162;  Vol.  IV,  p.  34  et  seq. 


152  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Republican  and  eighteen  Democratic,  according  to  the  approved 
estimates  of  the  experts  of  your  Republican  majority,  as  pub- 
lished in  the  New  York  Press,  a  Republican  organ.  The  as- 
sembly is  increased  from  128  to  150.  Of  this  150,  ninety-one 
are  to  be  Republicans  and  fifty-nine  Democrats.  Each  House 
will  be  Republican  by  over  three-fifths.  This  apportionment  is 
of  such  a  nature  that  should  the  Democrats  carry  the  State  by 
a  majority  of  120,000  they  would  not  be  able  to  control  both 
Houses  of  the  Legislature. 

Then  you  adopt  the  English  idea,  the  plan  on  which  members 
of  Parliament  were  elected  in  England's  most  corrupt  days,  of 
giving  representation  to  counties  irrespective  of  population. 
What  is  there  sacred  about  county  lines  that  you  should  so  in- 
sist upon  them  in  your  proposition  and  report  ?  The  county  of 
Putnam  has  a  population  of  13,325,  a  third  of  the  number  to 
entitle  it  to  a  Member  of  the  Assembly,  still  you  give  Putnam 
county  an  Assemblyman.  Is  this  because  Putnam  county  is 
Republican?  Schuyler  county  has  16,326  population,  less  than 
half  the  ratio  you  have  fixed  of  38,606.  Is  it  to  have  an  Assem- 
blyman because  Schuyler  county  is  Republican  ? 

You  seek  to  appeal  to  prejudice  to  array  the  rural  counties 
of  the  State  against  the  cities.  You  aim  at  arousing  the  agri- 
cultural interests  against  the  commercial  and  industrial.  What 
an  appeal !  What  a  spectacle  you  are  making,  not  only  to  the 
residents  of  the  cities,  whom  you  chain  hand  and  foot,  but  to  the 
rural  counties,  whom  you  ask  to  vent  on  the  cities  the  prejudice 
which  you  seek  to  arouse.  Let  us  analyze  this  work  of  adroit 
partizanship  which  you  have  devised.  You  take  the  State  Sen- 
ators of  1892,  with  the  citizen  population  of  the  State,  5,790,865, 
and  with  fifty  Senate  districts  make  your  ratio  115,817.  On  the 
basis  of  last  fall's  vote,  it  will  require  28,926  Democrats  to  elect 
a  Democratic  State  Senator  and  only  17,062  Republicans  to 
elect  a  Republican  State  Senator.  Three  Republicans  will  have 
as  much  representation  as  five  Democrats.  Such  an  apportion- 
ment is  a  work  of  art. 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     1 53 

Taking  your  own  figures  as  printed  in  your  report,  Docu- 
ment No.  65,  let  us  see  where  the  districts  which  have  more  than 
the  ratio,  and  where  the  districts  which  have  less.  In  Kings 
county  you  have  58,264  citizens  left  over,  enough  to  be  entitled 
to  another  Senator,  a  robbery  of  one  Democratic  Senator  in  ad- 
dition to  your  gerrymander  of  the  Brooklyn  district.  In  every 
New  York  City  district  you  have  exceeded  the  ratio  and  dis- 
franchised 34,160  citizens.  In  Westchester  county  you  have 
exceeded  the  ratio  13,407.  In  these  three  counties  alone,  all  of 
them  Democratic,  your  excess  is  over  100,000.  .  . 

MR.  MAYBEE.  The  basic  idea  of  the  whole  scheme,  the 
foundation  upon  which  the  whole  scheme  rests,  is  the  great  de- 
fect in  this  measure.  It  increases  the  number  of  Members  of 
Assembly  from  128  to  150;  it  increases  the  number  of  Senators 
from  thirty-two  to  fifty,  an  increase  of  forty  members  of  the 
Legislature,  without  any  reason  whatever.  Will  any  gentleman 
tell  me  what  good  reason  exists  for  this  large  increase  in  the  mem- 
bership of  the  Legislature  ?  Has  there  been  anywhere  a  demand 
for  it  ?  Have  the  people,  by  petitions,  through  the  columns  of 
the  newspapers  anywhere,  made  a  demand  for  this  increase? 
What  good  purpose  does  it  subserve?  The  purpose  of  it  is 
political,  and  political  only.  There  is  no  reason  why  an  Assembly 
of  150  members  will  do  the  business  of  the  State  any  better,  any 
more  satisfactorily  than  an  Assembly  of  128  members.  There 
is  no  reason  why  a  Senate  of  fifty  members  will  do  the  business  of 
the  State  with  any  greater  satisfaction  to  the  people  of  a  State 
than  a  Senate  of  thirty-two  members. 

It  is  a  recognized  principle  in  political  history,  which  has  be- 
come axiomatic,  that  the  larger  the  constituency  within  a  rea- 
sonable limit,  the  better  representative  will  you  get.  This  is 
not  denied  by  any  students  of  political  history.  This  measure 
intends  to  narrow  the  constituencies,  not  to  broaden  them ;  in- 
tends to  make  them  smaller,  and  not  larger ;  and  for  a  political 
purpose,  and  a  political  purpose  only,  contravenes  the  well- 
known  theory  of  political  history  and  political  economy  that  a 


154  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

large  constituency  is  more  apt  to  return  a  good  member  than  a 
small  one.  Now,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  consists  of 
about  350  members.  Those  members  represent  between  sixty 
and  seventy  millions  of  people,  and  yet  gentlemen  upon  the 
other  side  of  the  House  say  that  128  Members  of  Assembly  are 
not  enough  in  number  to  fitly  and  adequately  represent  about 
six  millions  of  people. 

MR.  CHOATE.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  true  that  direct 
population,  popular  count,  man  for  man,  has  ever  been  in  this 
State  the  basis  of  representation  in  the  Legislature.  We  are 
not  a  pure  Democracy;  we  are  not  an  impure  Republic.  We 
are  a  representative  government  so  far  as  its  legislative  body 
and  the  dealing  out  of  legislative  powers  are  concerned.  For 
the  great  offices  of  State,  the  Governor  and  other  great  officers, 
we  vote  man  by  man  and  the  majority  rules.  In  the  highest  ju- 
dicial court  of  the  State  we  vote  in  the  same  way,  popular  sover- 
eignty, popular  majority,  or,  at  any  rate,  popular  plurality.  It 
has  never  been  so,  it  never  will  be  so,  it  never  can  be  so,  in  re- 
spect to  the  Senate  and  Assembly.  We  must  be  represented  by 
districts;  we  must  be  represented  by  counties;  we  must  be 
represented  by  some  form  of  territorial  division.  When  my 
friends  on  this  side  of  the  chamber  concede,  as  they  must  con- 
cede, that,  they  give  away  the  whole  of  the  argument  which  Mr. 
Osborn  presented,  based  upon  equal  popular  representation. 
Why,  there  is  the  little  county  of  Putnam  of  his,  with  13,000 
people  and  the  adjoining  county  of  Westchester  with  127,000, 
that,  according  to  his  theory,  ought  to  have  ten  times  as  much. 
Nobody  has  ever  dreamed  under  this  or  any  other  apportion- 
ment, of  giving  it  more  than  three  times  as  much. 

What  do  the  people  of  this  State  come  to  the  Legislature  for  ? 
To  make  laws  for  the  whole  State ;  to  represent  the  whole  State, 
and  each  part  of  the  State  is  interested  in  the  whole.  My  friend 
down  here  upon  this  side  talked  as  if  all  the  wealth  accumulated 
in  the  city  of  New  York  ought  to  lie  at  the  basis  and  foundation 
of  apportionment.  Who  owns  the  magnificent  harbor  which  is 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     155 

the  foundation  of  all  her  prosperity  and  those  great  rivers  which 
meet  to  kiss  each  other  at  her  door  ?  Why,  the  little  county  of 
Niagara  might  just  as  well  claim  to  own  for  itself  the  Cataract 
of  Niagara,  that  other  wonder  of  the  world  at  the  other  end  of 
the  State.  No,  sir,  they  come  here  representing  these  divisions, 
and  the  first  rule  always  has  been,  and  always  will  be,  I  believe, 
that  each  one  of  these  divisions,  these  counties  which  have  been 
formed  as  political  divisions  for  the  very  purpose  of  being  the 
centres  of  home  rule,  if  you  please,  of  local  government,  —  every 
one  of  them  has  the  right,  and  the  equal  right ;  and  if  there  were 
but  sixty  counties,  if  there  were  but  sixty  representatives,  they 
must  be  distributed  among  these  sixty  counties,  upon  every 
doctrine  that  has  ever  prevailed  in  this  State;  and  the  little 
county  of  Putnam  in  that  case  would  be  entitled  to  the  same 
number  in  that  assembly  as  the  great  county  of  New  York. 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  want  to  go,  for  example,  to  good  Demo- 
cratic authority,  I  want  to  give  you  some  on  this  doctrine  in 
support  of  this  proposition  that  is  represented  in  this  scheme; 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  greater  the  territorial  extent  of  a  little 
and  poor  county,  the  greater  shall  be  its  representation  in  the 
popular  branch  of  the  Legislature.  Florida  —  is  not  that  a  good 
Democratic  State?  Did  anybody  ever  hear  of  a  Republican 
entering  its  borders  except  for  the  purpose  of  summer  recreation 
or  for  the  investigation  of  fraud?  Florida  says:  "The  repre- 
sentation in  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  apportioned 
among  the  several  counties  as  nearly  as  possible  according  to 
population ;  provided,  each  county  shall  have  one  representative 
at  large  in  the  House  of  Representatives ;  and  no  county  shall 
have  more  than  three  representatives."  Think  of  that. 

Georgia  —  is  not  that  a  good  Democratic  State?  Here  are 
States  that  are  all  of  one  way  of  thinking.  Georgia  apportions 
her  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  representatives  among  the 
several  counties  thus:  "To  the  six  counties  having  the  largest 
population,  three  each;  to  the  twenty-six  counties  having  the 
next  largest  population,  two  each;  to  the  remaining  one  hun- 


156  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

dred  and  five  counties,  one  each.  After  each  United  States  cen- 
sus, the  General  Assembly  may  change  the  above  apportionment 
so  as  to  give  to  the  six  largest  counties  three  each ;  to  the  twenty- 
six  next  largest,  two  each ;  but  in  no  event  shall  the  aggregate 
number  of  representatives  be  increased."  Is  that  good  Demo- 
cratic doctrine  ? 

3.     THE    FEDERAL    LAW    REQUIRING    SINGLE'  MEMBER     DISTRICTS 
FOR   THE   ELECTION   OF    MEMBERS    OF    THE     HOUSE    OF    REP- 


Up  to  1842,  the  states  were  free  to  adopt  any  method  of 
popular  election  for  the  choice  of  their  representatives  in  the 
lower  house  of  Congress.  Congress  contented  itself  with  pre- 
scribing only  the  number  of  representatives  to  which  each  state 
was  entitled.  Since  1842  the  election  is  required  to  be  by  single 
member  districts.  When  the  number  of  representatives  has 
been  cut  down  but  the  legislature  has  not  yet  redistricted  the 
state  the  elections  are  occasionally  held  under  the  old  general 
ticket  system.  South  Dakota  does  so  regularly. 

CHAP.  XL VII.  An  Act  for  the  apportionment  of  Represent- 
atives among  the  several  States  according  to  the  sixth  census. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  from 
and  after  the  third  day  of  March,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-three,  the  House  of  Representatives  shall  be  composed 
of  members  elected  agreeably  to  a  ratio  of  one  Representative 
for  every  seventy  thousand  six  hundred  and  eighty  persons  in 
each  State,  and  of  one  additional  representative  for  each  State 
having  a  fraction  greater  than  one  moiety  of  the  said  ratio,  com- 
puted according  to  the  rule  prescribed  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States ;  that  is  to  say :  Within  the  State  of  Maine, 
seven;  within  the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  four;  within  the 
State  of  Massachusetts,  ten ;  within  the  State  of  Rhode  Island, 

1  United  States  Statutes  at  Large.    Vol.  V,  p.  491 ;  June  25,  1842. 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     157 

two ;  within  the  State  of  Connecticut,  four ;  within  the  State  of 
Vermont,  four;  within  the  State  of  New  York,  thirty-four; 
within  the  state  of  New  Jersey,  five ;  within  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, twenty-four ;  within  the  State  of  Delaware,  one ;  within 
the  State  of  Maryland,  six ;  within  the  State  of  Virginia,  fifteen ; 
within  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  nine;  within  the  State 
of  South  Carolina,  seven;  within  the  State  of  Georgia,  eight; 
within  the  State  of  Alabama,  seven ;  within  the  State  of  Louisi- 
ana, four;  within  the  State  of  Mississippi,  four;  within  the 
State  of  Tennessee,  eleven ;  within  the  State  of  Kentucky,  ten ; 
within  the  State  of  Ohio,  twenty-one;  within  the  State  of 
Indiana,  ten ;  within  the  State  of  Illinois,  seven ;  within  the 
State  of  Missouri,  five ;  within  the  State  of  Arkansas,  one ;  and 
within  the  State  of  Michigan,  three. 

Sec.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  in  every  case  where 
a  State  is  entitled  to  more  than  one  Representative,  the  number 
to  which  each  State  shall  be  entitled  under  this  apportionment 
shall  be  elected  by  districts  composed  of  contiguous  territory 
equal  in  number  to  the  number  of  Representatives  to  which  said 
State  may  be  entitled,  no  one  district  electing  more  than  one 
Representative. 

Approved,  June  25,  1842. 

4.     CONSTITUTIONAL  LIMITATIONS   ON  APPORTIONMENTS  l 

The  Federal  law  requiring  that  Representatives  should  be 
elected  from  single  member  districts  of  approximately  equal 
population  has  been  accompanied  by  constitutional  provisions 
in  the  states  applying  to  both  congressional  and  state  legisla- 
tive districts.  The  character  and  efficiency  of  those  provisions 
is  discussed  below. 

In  order  to  limit  the  discretion  of  legislatures  in  the  matter  of 
apportionment  and  to  oblige  them  to  make  a  more  equitable 

1  Reinsch,  P.  S.,  American  Legislatures  and  Legislative  Methods.  Century 
Co.,  New  York,  1907;  pp.  204-213. 


158  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

division  of  the  electorate,  strict  constitutional  provisions  have 
in  many  states  been  adopted.  A  good  example  of  a  detailed 
regulation  is  found  in  the  New  York  constitution  of  1895  (Art. 
3,  Sec.  2).  This  constitution  provides  that  the  Senate  shall  con- 
sist of  fifty  members,  the  Assembly  of  150;  that  the  apportion- 
ment is  to  be  changed  by  the  legislature  after  the  enumeration  of 
1905  and  every  ten  years  thereafter.  The  senate  districts  are 
to  contain  as  nearly  equal  a  number  of  inhabitants  as  may  be ; 
they  are  to  be  compact  in  form,  consisting  of  contiguous  territory. 
No  county  is  to  be  divided  save  to  make  two  or  more  Senate  dis- 
tricts wholly  within  such  county.  No  county  is  to  have  more 
than  one-third  of  all  the  senators,  or  any  two  adjoining  counties 
more  than  one-half.  If  a  county  having  three  or  more  senators 
is  entitled  to  a  greater  number,  the  senators  allotted  to  it  shall 
be  given  in  addition  to  the  fifty  already  provided  for.  Each 
county,  with  one  exception,  is  entitled  to  at  least  one  member  of 
the  Assembly ;  in  the  counties  entitled  to  more  than  one  member, 
the  Board  of  Supervisors  or  the  Common  Council  make  the  ap- 
portionment. But  each  Assembly  district  must  be  wholly  within 
a  Senate  district,  and  no  township  or  city  block  is  to  be  divided. 
Legislative  apportionment  is  subject  to  review  by  the  Court  of 
Appeals  at  the  suit  of  any  citizen. 

The  New  York  Court  of  Appeals  had  before  this  shown  itself 
rather  reluctant  to  interfere  with  the  legislative  discretion  in 
matters  of  apportionment.  Great  inequalities  had  existed  under 
the  later  acts.  Thus  the  act  of  1879  gave  one  representative  to 
Suffolk  County  with  50,330  inhabitants;  two  to  Cattaraugus 
with  only  45,737,  and  three  to  St.  Lawrence  with  78,014.  Gov- 
ernor Robinson  spoke  of  these  inequalities  as  admitting  of  no 
apology  or  excuse.  But  he  was  powerless  in  the  matter,  since  a 
veto  of  the  law  would  have  left  the  still  more  objectionable  act 
of  1866  in  force.  Under  the  act  of  1892  also  there  were  some 
glaring  inequalities ;  the  Twelfth  senate  district  had  only  105,- 
720  inhabitants,  the  adjoining  Thirteenth  241,138.  This  time 
St.  Lawrence  with  80,679  inhabitants  received  only  one  assem- 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     159 

blyman,  while  Dutchess  with  75,078  received  two,  and 
Albany  with  156,748  received  four.  The  Court  of  Appeals, 
which  was  called  upon  to  decide  on  the  constitutionality  of  this 
act,  refused  to  interfere  with  the  discretion  of  the  legislature. 
(People  ex  ret.  Carter  v.  Rice,  135  N.Y.,  473  (1892).  The 
principle  upon  which  the  Court  based  its  decision  was  stated  in 
the  following  language:  "The  discretion  necessarily  vested  in 
the  legislature  must  be  finally  disposed  of  by  it,  unless  there  is 
such  an  abuse  of  that  discretion  as  to  clearly  show  an  open  and 
intended  violation  of  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution." 
The  Court  was  also  strongly  impressed  with  questions  of  expedi- 
ence in  the  situation,  as  is  apparent  from  the  argument  in  the 
opinion,  that  the  effect  of  setting  aside  an  apportionment  act 
would  be  to  cause  every  subsequent  act  to  be  brought  before  the 
courts  for  review,  which  might  happen  at  a  critical  time ;  to 
originate  the  greatest  confusion  at  the  impending  election  with 
a  possible  total  suppression  of  it ;  and  at  all  events  to  continue 
in  force  an  act  containing  greater  inequalities  than  the  one 
attacked.  These  considerations  were  sufficient  to  induce  the 
Court  to  say  that  "only  in  a  case  of  plain  and  gross  violation 
of  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Constitution  should  it  exercise  the 
power." 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois  has  been  similarly  disinclined 
to  interfere  with  legislative  apportionments.  (People  ex  rel. 
Woodyatt  ».  Thompson,  155  111.,  451  (1895).)  It  held  that 
the  courts  cannot  inquire  into  the  motives  which  have 
influenced  the  legislature  in  making  an  apportionment.  If 
the  constitutional  requirements  of  compactness  of  territory 
and  equality  of  population  have  been  applied  at  all,  the 
Court  will  not  interfere,  though  the  nearest  possible  approxi- 
mation to  these  requirements  may  not  have  been  attained.  The 
Court  held  that  an  act  apportioning  senatorial  districts  is  un- 
constitutional, if  it  appears  that  the  constitutional  requirements 
of  compactness  of  territory  and  equality  in  population  have  been 
wholly  ignored,  and  not  considered  or  applied  to  any  extent. 


160  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

But  if  considered  and  applied,  although  to  a  limited  extent  only, 
subject  to  the  more  definite  limitations,  the  act  is  constitutional, 
although  the  legislature  may  have  imperfectly  performed  its 
duty.  ...  "  As  the  courts  cannot  make  a  senatorial  apportion- 
ment directly,  neither  can  they  do  so  indirectly.  There  is  a 
vast  difference  between  determining  whether  the  principle  of 
compactness  of  territory  has  been  applied  at  all  or  not,  and 
whether  or  not  the  nearest  practical  approximation  to  perfect 
compactness  has  been  obtained.  The  first  is  a  question  for  the 
courts  to  determine ;  the  latter  is  for  the  legislature." 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Kansas  in  an  earlier  case  leaves  con- 
siderable discretion  to  the  legislature  in  the  matter  of  appor- 
tionment. (Prouty  v.  Stover,  n  Kans.,  235;  1873.)  Justice 
Brewer  says,  in  giving  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  —  "An  appor- 
tionment cannot  be  overthrown  because  the  representatives  are 
not  distributed  with  mathematical  accuracy,  according  to  the 
population.  Something  must  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  the 
legislature,  and  it  may,  without  invalidating  the  apportionment, 
make  one  district  of  a  larger  population  than  another.  It  may 
rightfully  consider  the  compactness  of  territory,  the  density  of 
population,  and  also,  we  think,  the  probable  changes  of  the  fu- 
ture in  making  the  distribution  of  representatives."  A  most 
extreme  position  was  taken  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  of 
Virginia  (Wise  v.  Bigger,  79  Va.,  1884)  in  declaring  that  "the 
laying  off  and  defining  the  congressional  districts  is  the  exercise 
of  a  political  and  discretionary  power  of  the  legislature,  for  which 
they  are  amenable  to  the  people  whose  representatives  they 
are."  This  opinion,  which  was  given  by  the  Court  without 
any  discussion  of  the  question,  was  declared  although  specific 
constitutional  restrictions  upon  the  legislative  power  had  been 
invoked. 

Courts  in  other  jurisdictions  have  recently  taken  a  more  de- 
cisive stand  against  the  abuse  of  legislative  discretion  in  dis- 
tricting the  state  for  electoral  purposes.  The  state  of  Michigan 
suffered  a  good  deal  from  frequent  unscrupulous  gerrymandering, 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     161 

as  the  constitution  did  not  prescribe  a  definite  period  of  ap- 
portionment. The  Republicans  in  1885,  and  the  Democrats  in 
1891,  in  the  first  case  upon  a  majority  of  less  than  4,000  in  a 
total  vote  of  400,000,  so  gerrymandered  the  senatorial  districts 
as  to  yield  their  own  party  twenty-one  senators  and  their  op- 
ponents eleven.  Under  the  apportionment  of  1891,  eight  coun- 
ties with  a  population  of  40,000  were  formed  into  a  district  hav- 
ing one  senator,  and  nine  adjoining  counties  with  97,000  inhab- 
itants were  given  the  same  representation.  Both  of  the  acts 
mentioned  were  held  unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
which  decided  among  other  things  that  it  was  not  a  due  exercise 
of  legislative  discretion  under  the  constitution,  to  give  a  county 
of  less  population  than  another  greater  representation,  and  that 
the  discretion  of  the  legislature  must  be  honestly  exercised  so  as 
to  preserve  the  equality  of  representation  as  nearly  as  may  be. 
(Supervisors  of  Houghton  County  ».  Blacker,  92  Mich.,  638. 
Giddings  v.  Blacker,  93  Mich.,  i ;  1892).  The  judges,  in  their 
written  opinions,  used  very  strong  language  in  denouncing  the 
practice  of  gerrymandering.  Chief  Justice  Morse  declared  that 
the  courts  alone  could  in  this  matter  save  the  rights  of  the  people 
and  assure  them  of  equality  in  representation ;  and  another  jus- 
tice said,  "Such  laws  breed  disrespect  for  all  law,  for  law  makers 
become  law  breakers." 

The  Supreme  Court  of  Wisconsin  has  taken  especially  ad- 
vanced ground  in  enforcing  constitutional  limitations  upon  the 
discretion  of  the  legislature.  (State  ex  rel.  Attorney  General  v. 
Cunningham,  81  Wis.,  440.)  The  court  decided  that  "an  ap- 
portionment act  may  be  judicially  declared  void  for  violation  of 
a  constitutional  requirement  of  apportionment  according  to  the 
number  of  inhabitants,  when  the  disparity  in  their  numbers,  in 
the  districts  created,  is  so  great  that  it  cannot  possibly  be  jus- 
tified as  an  exercise  of  judgment  or  discretion.  A  constitu- 
tional requirement  of  apportionment  according  to  the  number 
of  inhabitants  in  creating  assembly  and  senate  districts,  is  vio- 
lated by  an  apportionment  act  in  which,  with  the  average  popu- 


1 62  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

lation  of  51,117  for  a  senate  district,  the  number  of  inhabitants 
in  the  respective  districts  created  ranges  from  37,000  to  68,000; 
and  in  the  assembly  districts,  with  an  average  of  16,868,  it  ranges 
from  6,000  to  38,000.  Such  an  act  is  not  an  ' apportionment' 
in  any  sense  of  the  word,  but  is  a  direct  and  palpable  violation 
of  the  constitution,  bearing  upon  its  face  intrinsic  evidence  that 
no  judgment  or  discretion  was  exercised  in  an  attempt  to  comply 
with  the  constitution.  The  whole  act  must  be  held  void  if  con- 
stitutional requirements  are  violated  in  the  formation  of  some 
of  the  districts."  In  the  second  case  the  court  decided  that  "  any 
number  of  legislative  violations  of  plain  and  unambiguous  con- 
stitutional provisions  regarding  the  apportionment  of  legislative 
districts  cannot  be  regarded  as  abrogating  such  provisions.  .  .  . 
The  unnecessary  inequalities  under  the  apportionment  of  July, 
1892,  such  as  one  assembly  district  having  three  times  the  popu- 
lation of  another  or  one  senate  district  having  double  that  of 
another,  are  held  to  render  the  act  invalid." 

The  supreme  court  of  Indiana  in  the  same  year  also  announced 
the  doctrine  of  a  stricter  limitation  of  legislative  discretion. 
(Parker  ».  State,  133  Ind.,  178,  1892.)  It  held  in  substance: 
"The  legislature  has  no  discretion  to  make  an  apportionment  in 
disregard  to  the  enumeration  of  inhabitants  authorized  to  vote, 
as  provided  for  in  the  constitution ;  and  because  exact  equality 
is  not  possible,  the  general  assembly  is  not  excused  from  making 
such  an  apportionment  as  will  approximate  the  equality  re- 
quired by  the  constitution.  This  rule  forbids  the  formation  of 
districts  containing  large  fractions  unrepresented  where  it  is 
possible  to  avoid  it,  while  other  districts  are  largely  over-repre- 
sented. While  the  general  assembly  has  much  discretion  in  dis- 
posing of  the  fractions  of  the  unit  of  representation,  yet  it  is  not 
beyond  control.  No  scheme  for  senatorial  districts  can  be  law- 
fully devised  in  which  a  county  having  less  than  the  unit  of  popu- 
lation for  a  senatorial  district  can  legally  be  entitled  to  vote  for 
two  senators,  where  the  constitutional  provisions  require  equal- 
ity in  representation.  A  county  having  more  than  the  repre- 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     163 

sentative  unit  of  population  cannot  be  denied  the  right  to  a 
separate  representative." 

In  deciding  upon  questions  of  apportionment  the  courts  often 
face  a  difficult  problem  in  the  fact  that  by  declaring  the  act  un- 
der consideration  void,  the  state  is  left  at  the  mercy  of  still  more 
intolerable  conditions  under  earlier  acts.  In  the  Michigan  cases 
of  1892,  the  supreme  court  held  void  not  only  the  apportionment 
of  1891,  but  also  the  act  of  1885,  under  which  three  elections  had 
been  held ;  and  prescribed  that  election  notices  should  be  issued 
by  the  secretary  of  state  under  the  old  law  of  1881,  unless  a  new 
and  valid  apportionment  should  be  made  by  the  legislature.  In 
the  Wisconsin  cases  the  court  took  cognizance  of  electoral  con- 
ditions, but,  refusing  to  be  influenced  by  them,  declared  only 
the  act  before  it  invalid.  It  did  not  investigate  the  earlier  acts 
as  to  constitutionality,  although  the  separate  opinions  show 
that  these  acts  were  in  the  same  class  with  the  law  held  void. 
The  court,  however,  did  suggest  action  by  extra  session,  as  al- 
ternative to  elections  under  a  previous  act.  While  the  supreme 
court  of  Michigan  decided  the  Michigan  acts  of  1891  and  1885 
both  unconstitutional,  the  Indiana  court  declared  contrary  to 
the  constitution  two  acts  of  1891  and  1879,  but  refused  to  con- 
sider the  constitutionality  of  the  act  of  1885,  as  this  question 
had  not  been  brought  before  it.  This  matter  was  given  careful 
consideration  by  the  New  York  court  of  appeals,  but  an  oppo- 
site conclusion  was  arrived  at ;  the  very  fact  that  the  earlier  acts 
were  also  contrary  to  the  constitution  was  made  a  reason  for  up- 
holding the  act  before  the  court.  Regarding  this  subject,  Jus- 
tice Peckham  used  the  following  language:  (People  ex  rel. 
Carter  v.  Rice,  135  N.Y.,  509).  "If  the  act  of  1892  is  void,  the 
act  of  1879  is  also  plainly  void  and  no  election  of  members  of  the 
assembly  should  be  tolerated  under  it.  This  might  relegate  the 
people  to  the  act  of  1866,  and  thus  we  might  have  an  attempt  at 
an  election  for  members  of  the  assembly  under  an  act  a  quarter 
of  a  century  old  and  a  legislative  representation  of  the  people  of 
that  time.  This  would  be  a  travesty  on  the  laws  and  upon  all 


164  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

ideas  of  equality,  propriety  and  justice.  We  are  compelled  to 
the  conclusion  that  this  act  of  1892  successfully  withstands  all 
assaults  upon  it  and  is  a  valid  and  effective  law." 

In  order  to  eliminate  the  evils  accompanying  the  present  sys- 
tem of  apportionment,  with  its  strong  temptation  to  gerryman- 
der, various  alternative  plans  have  been  proposed.  They  have, 
however,  not  as  yet  been  proven  in  practice  to  possess  the  reme- 
dial virtues  urged  in  their  behalf.  According  to  the  customary 
attitude  among  the  people,  a  great  deal  of  attention  has  been 
devoted  to  the  effects  of  the  present  inadequate  system,  while 
comparatively  little  has  been  paid  to  its  source.  The  pallia- 
tives that  have  been  suggested  include  elections  at  large,  ap- 
portionment by  congressional  action,  cumulative  voting  and  the 
quota  system  of  proportional  representation ;  but  while  admit- 
ting the  special  advantages  of  each,  it  is  not  clearly  evident  that 
any  one  of  the  proposed  changes  would  completely  bring  about 
the  desired  result  of  fair  and  equal  representation  of  interests 
and  sections  as  well  as  of  population. 

5.  SOME  TYPES  OF  PROPORTIONAL  REPRESENTATION  1 

If  parties,  not  territorial  units,  are  entitled  to  representa- 
tion, it  is  essential  that  some  electoral  machinery  should  be 
adopted  which  will  provide  representation  based  on  the  rela- 
tive number  of  votes  cast  by  each  party  throughout  the  electoral 
district.  This  is  the  object  of  all  methods  of  Proportional  rep- 
resentation. Though  such  plans  are  just  beginning  to  attract 
attention  in  the  United  States,  they  have  received  various  appli- 
cations in  Europe  and  Australia  and  merit  the  attention  of  Ameri- 
can political  reformers. 

Proportionalists  in  the  recent  past  have  had  for  their  most 
formidable  difficulty  a  want  of  agreement  concerning  the  plan, 
method,  or  system  to  be  presented  in  propaganda.  They  were 
agreed  as  to  the  proportional  principle,  but  differed  about  pro- 
portional practise. 

1  Robert  Tyson,  "The  Single  Transferable  Vote."    Equity,  Jan.,  1911. 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives     165 

This  difficulty  is  gradually  being  overcome  by  recent  develop- 
ments, and  now  a  basis  of  agreement  is  prominently  to  the  front, 
well  described  by  the  title  which  heads  this  article :  "  The  Single 
Transferable  Vote."  It  is  a  most  happy  phrase,  for  it  covers 
three  essentials  on  which  a  large  body  of  proportionalists  are 
agreed,  whilst  leaving  room  for  variations  in  the  method  of  trans- 
fer, so  as  to  meet  any  disagreements  in  this  respect. 

The  three  essential  points  agreed  upon  by  the  great  body  of 
English-speaking  proportionalists  are  these:  (a)  an  electoral 
district  from  which  several  members  are  elected;  (b)  one  final 
vote  only  for  each  elector ;  and  (c)  some  method  of  transferring 
votes  from  candidates  who  cannot  use  them  to  candidates  who 
can. 

There  are  just  four  systems  which  embody  these  essential 
points.  Or,  to  put  it  in  another  way,  there  are  just  four  varia- 
tions of  the  Single  Transferable  Vote.  Briefly,  here  they  are, 
with  some  short  notes  on  each : 

i.  The  Hare  or  Hare-S 'pence  System.  I  put  this  first,  be- 
cause it  is  the  most  widely  adopted  in  actual  practise,  being  used 
in  Tasmania,  South  Africa,  Denmark  and  elsewhere.  Ballots 
are  marked  first  choice,  second  choice,  etc.,  by  the  electors. 
First  choices  are  tallied  and  sorted  at  "precincts"  or  "polling 
subdivisions."  At  the  close  of  the  poll,  all  ballots  are  taken 
to  the  central  office.  A  "quota"  is  got  on  the  general  principle 
of  dividing  the  total  vote  by  the  number  of  seats  to  be  filled. 
Then  the  transfers  are  made  on  the  basis  of  the  choices  marked 
by  the  electors.  If  a  candidate  has  surplus  votes,  over  and 
above  the  quota,  they  are  evidently  votes  which  he  has  no  use 
for,  and  they  are  transferred  away  from  him.  Then  the  candi- 
dates weakest  in  votes  are  excluded,  one  by  one,  and  their  bal- 
lots transferred.  This  process  is  continued  until  only  enough 
candidates  remain  to  fill  the  seats.  Let  me  repeat  that  all  trans- 
fers are  made  according  to  the  wishes  of  the  electors,  as  expressed 
by  the  "choices"  marked  on  their  ballots. 

It  is  an  excellent  system;    its  advantages  are  well  known; 


1 66  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

and  it  has  worked  well  in  practise.  The  objections  urged 
against  it  are :  (a)  there  is  a  good  deal  of  elaboration  involved 
in  a  fully  satisfactory  distribution  of  the  surplus  votes;  (b) 
the  ballots  have  all  to  be  taken  to  one  central  point  for  transfer. 

2.  The  Schedule  Plan.     This  is  the  simplest  form  of  the  Sin- 
gle Transferable  Vote,  and  I  put  it  second  because  of  its  close 
analogy  to  the  Hare  system. 

After  nomination  and  before  election  each  candidate  publishes 
and  officially  files  a  preferential  schedule,  setting  out  those  other 
candidates  to  whom  he  instructs  shall  be  transferred  his  surplus 
votes,  if  any,  or  all  his  votes  if  he  cannot  be  elected.  Each  elec- 
tor marks  his  ballot  for  one  candidate  only.  Returns  from  the 
precincts  are  sent  to  the  central  office ;  a  quota  is  ascertained ; 
and  transfers  are  made  on  the  same  principle  as  in  the  Hare  sys- 
tem, but  on  the  basis  of  candidates'  schedules,  instead  of  accord- 
ing to  the  voter's  marking  of  choices,  which  he  does  not  do  under 
this  plan.  It  is  suggested  that  provision  should  be  made  for 
the  voter,  by  his  ballot,  to  reject  his  candidate's  schedule  if  he 
does  not  approve  of  it,  thereby  confining  himself  to  a  first-choice 
vote  only,  and  taking  the  risk  of  that  vote  staying  with  a  losing 
candidate. 

The  advantages  of  the  schedule  method  are  its  extreme  sim- 
plicity, and  the  fact  that  the  ballots  are  not  required  at  a  cen- 
tral office  for  counting  the  votes. 

Objections  urged  are  (a)  that  the  voter,  not  the  candidate, 
ought  to  determine  the  transfers ;  (b)  that  the  making  of  a  pref- 
erential list  would  be  embarrassing  to  candidates  —  and  (c) 
that  the  system  is  nowhere  in  use  for  municipal  or  legislative 
elections. 

3.  The  Proxy  Plan.    I  give  here  but  a  mere  outline.     Elec- 
tors mark  on  their  ballots  several  candidates  in  the  order  of  their 
choice,  precisely  as  in  the  Hare  system.     First-choice  votes  are 
sorted  and  tallied  at  precincts.    All  ballots  and  tally  sheets  are 
taken  to  a  central  office.    No  quota  is  got,  and  there  are  no 
"surplus  votes"  to  deal  with.    As  soon  as  the  total  first-choice 


Elections  to  the  House  of  Representatives      167 

votes  for  each  candidate  are  ascertained,  the  process  begins  of 
excluding  the  weakest  candidates,  one  by  one,  and  transferring 
their  votes  according  to  the  wishes  of  the  electors  as  expressed 
on  each  ballot,  until  only  the  required  number  of  candidates  re- 
main. On  these  candidates  have  been  concentrated  all  the  votes 
cast;  some  having  received,  of  course,  many  more  votes  than 
others.  Then  each  candidate  is  empowered,  on  a  division  in 
council  or  legislature,  to  cast  as  many  votes  as  have  been  cast 
for  him  at  his  election. 

Advantages  of  the  proxy  plan  are  its  simplicity  and  that  it 
may  operate  to  give  representation  to  more  groups  of  electors 
than  the  other  plans. 

Objections  are:  (a)  that  mere  votes  on  a  division  are  not 
the  only  thing  required,  but  personnel  counts  also ;  and  (b)  that 
the  system  has  never  been  tried  for  municipal  or  legislative 
elections. 

4.  The  Single  Vote  Free  List.  This  plan  comes  under  the  full 
scope  of  our  heading  only  by  reason  of  an  indirect  transfer.  The 
candidates  are  arranged  on  the  ballot  in  party  lists,  and  each 
voter  has  one  vote  only.  I  will  not  go  farther  into  detail,  be- 
cause the  general  plan  of  list  systems  is  fairly  well  known,  .  . 

The  advantages  are,  considerable  simplicity;  a  compliance 
with  present  electoral  habits  of  the  United  States ;  the  ballots 
need  not  be  taken  to  a  central  office  for  the  purpose  of  the  final 
count;  its  successful  use  in  Belgium  for  six  successive  parlia- 
mentary elections;  and  its  advocacy  by  the  People's  Power 
League  of  the  state  of  Oregon.  An  ingenious  improvement  of 
detail  has  been  suggested  in  Oregon,  which  would  remove  the 
difficulty  heretofore  experienced  in  dealing  with  the  fractions  of 
quotas  which  arise  in  dividing  each  list  by  the  quota. 

The  objections  urged  against  all  list  plans  are:  (a)  they 
strengthen  and  perpetuate  the  permanent  partizan  party  feeling ; 
(b)  they  give  party  organizations  too  much  power  in  nomina- 
tions ;  and  (c)  they  afford  too  little  scope  for  the  preferences  of 
the  individual  elector  in  his  choice  of  a  candidate. 


1 68  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

General  Comment.  There  is  no  doubt  that  so  far  the  Hare 
system  is  ahead  in  the  race,  not  only  by  reason  of  its  use  in  Den- 
mark, Tasmania  and  South  Africa,  but  because  it  is  being  pushed 
by  a  powerful  and  active  organization  in  Great  Britain,  which 
has  held  three  successful  test  elections  on  a  large  scale.  Another 
thing  which  helps  the  Hare  plan  is  its  peculiar  adaptability,  in 
its  simpler  form,  for  use  in  meeting-room  elections  of  clubs, 
associations,  etc.  I  confess  to  being  much  attracted  by  the  sim- 
plicity of  both  the  Schedule  System  and  the  Proxy  Plan ;  and  I 
should  very  much  like  to  see  one  or  both  tried  on  a  large  scale. 


VII.  PARTY  ORGANIZATION 

I.     PARTY  REGULARITY1 

The  importance  of  securing  united  action  is  so  great  that 
the  party  is  able  to  override  or  at  least  silence  any  objection 
within  the  ranks  after  the  policy  has  been  determined  upon  by 
the  majority,  or  too  often  by  the  leaders  who  assume  to  stand 
for  the  majority.  Only  in  extraordinary  cases  will  the  rank  and 
file  break  away  from  the  party  with  which  they  have  become 
accustomed  to  vote. 

SINCE  it  lacks  a  true  representative  character,  and  its  concern 
in  public  affairs  is  at  bottom  a  business  pursuit  carried  on  for 
personal  gain  and  emolument,  the  service  which  party  performs 
in  executing  the  behests  of  public  opinion  and  in  carrying  on  politi- 
cal development  must  be  an  incident  in  its  ordinary  activity. 
That  this  is  the  case  all  observation  confirms.  It  is  a  common 
remark,  that  all  political  parties  seem  to  care  for  is  the  possession 
of  the  offices,  and  that  they  are  willing  to  shift  and  change  their 
principles  as  much  as  need  be  in  order  to  win.  Talleyrand's 
cynical  remark,  that  a  man  ho  is  always  true  to  his  party  must 
be  prepared  to  change  his  principles  frequently,  is  peculiarly 
applicable  to  American  politics.  Party  effrontery  is  carried  to 
such  a  pitch  that  in  one  state  a  party  may  take  up  and  energeti- 
cally advocate  doctrines,  which  the  same  party  in  another  state 
will  be  just  as  actively  engaged  in  denouncing  and  opposing. 
So  accommodating  is  party  policy  in  this  respect,  that  s'ate  polit- 
ical campaigns  have  become  tests  of  the  public  disposition,  and 
the  results  of  such  experimentation  are  studied  for  data  upon 

1  Ford,  H.  J.,  Rise  and  Growth  of  American  Politics.  Macmillan,  New 
York,  1900;  pp.  325-333- 

169 


170  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

which  to  base  plans  for  the  grand  quadrennial  adventure  of  the 
presidential  election. 

It  therefore  appears  that  wherein  party  serves  public  interests 
is  in  the  catering  to  public  wants  and  desires  which  every  party 
organization  must  carry  on  t'b  get  and  hold  business  in  compe- 
tition with  opposing  party  organization.  Hence  party  is  obliged 
to  consult  public  opinion  and  assume  engagements  to  be  carried 
out  in  the  administration  of  public  affairs.  American  politics 
are  not  peculiar  in  this  respect,  for  that  is  the  way  in  which  party 
discharges  its  function  wherever  it  carries  on  the  government. 
What  is  peculiar  to  American  politics  is  that  party  organization 
is  so  situated  that  it  cannot  negotiate  as  a  principal  but  as  a 
go-between.  Unlike  an  English  party,  it  cannot  itself  formulate 
measures,  direct  the  course  of  legislation,  and  assume  the  direct 
responsibility  of  administration.  All  that  it  can  do  is  to  certify 
the  political  complexion  of  candidates,  leaving  it  to  be  inferred 
that  their  common  purpose  will  effect  such  unity  of  action  as 
will  control  legislation  and  direct  administration  in  accordance 
with  party  professions.  The  peculiarities  of  American  party 
government  are  all  due  to  this  separation  of  party  management 
from  direct  and  immediate  responsibility  for  the  administration 
of  government.  Party  organization  is  compelled  to  act  through 
executive  and  legislative  deputies,  who,  while  always  far  from 
disavowing  their  party  obligations,  are  quite  free  to  use  their 
own  discretion  as  to  the  way  in  which  they  shall  interpret  and 
fulfil  the  party  pledges.  Meanwhile  they  are  shielded,  by  the 
constitutional  partitions  of  privilege  and  distributions  of  author- 
ity, from  any  direct  and  specific  responsibility  for  delay  or  fail- 
ure in  coming  to  an  agreement  for  the  accomplishment  of  party 
purposes.  Authority  being  divided,  responsibility  is  uncertain 
and  confused,  and  the  accountability  of  the  government  to  the 
people  is  not  at  all  definite  or  precise.  When  a  party  meets  with 
disaster  at  the  polls,  every  one  may  form  his  own  opinion  as  to 
the  cause.  It  is  purely  a  matter  of  speculation.  The  situation 
of  affairs  is  one  which  was  accurately  foretold  in  The  Federalist. 


Party  Organization  171 

"It  is  often  impossible,"  said  Hamilton,  "amidst  mutual  ac- 
cusations, to  determine  on  whom  the  blame  or  the  punishment 
of  a  pernicious  measure,  or  series  of  pernicious  measures,  ought 
really  to  fall.  It  is  shifted  from  one  to  another  with  so  much 
dexterity,  and  under  such  plausible  appearances,  that  the  public 
opinion  is  left  in  suspense  about  the  real  author.  The  circum- 
stances which  may  have  led  to  any  national  miscarriage  or  mis- 
fortune are  sometimes  so  complicated  that  where  there  are  a 
number  of  actors  who  may  have  had  different  degrees  and  kinds 
of  agency,  though  we  may  clearly  see  upon  the  whole  that  there 
has  been  mismanagement,  yet  it  may  be  impracticable  to  pro- 
nounce to  whose  account  the  evil  which  may  have  been  incurred 
is  truly  chargeable." 

As  a  natural  consequence  of  the  detached  and  subordinate 
'  position  of  party  organization  in  the  conduct  of  the  government, 
public  opinion  is  not  concentrated  upon  its  acts  with  steady  scru- 
tiny and  vigilant  supervision.  The  activity  of  party  is  largely 
concerned  with  details  of  its  own  business  management,  not 
possessing  much  interest  for  the  mass  of  the  people  who  have 
their  own  affairs  to  attend  to.  Its  contentions  are  largely  per- 
sonal squabbles,  whose  political  results  may  be  very  important, 
but  which  do  not  themselves  present  political  issues.  They  are 
like  the  intrigues  which  used  to  go  on  among  the  English  gentry, 
over  court  honors  and  official  emoluments,  in  the  Georgian  era 
of  English  politics,  the  mass  of  the  electorate  but  dimly  com- 
prehending what  was  going  on  and  regarding  the  strife  with  dis- 
gust and  aversion,  although  quickly  roused  to  activity  by 
issues  appealing  to  their  political  instincts.  The  true  public 
opinion  of  the  nation  is  ordinarily  in  a  state  of  suspense.  The 
minds  of  people  are  preoccupied  by  too  many  interests  to  attend 
closely  to  the  transactions  of  the  politicians,  and  not  until  the 
issue  is  thrust  upon  the  public  in  a  definite  form  by  some  pressing 
emergency  is  the  genuine  expression  of  public  opinion  evoked. 
Meanwhile  the  political  opinion  with  which  party  organization 
is  concerned,  and  to  which  it  defers,  is  that  with  which  it  comes 


172  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

in  contact  soliciting  business.  The  acrid  and  fretting  humors 
of  the  body  politic  exert  a  more  direct  and  active  influence 
upon  party  behavior  than  the  judgment  and  intelligence  of  the 
nation,  because  elements  of  unrest  and  dissatisfaction  are  im- 
portunate in  their  demands  and  therefore  receive  attention, 
while  social  interests  of  incomparably  greater  magnitude  are 
ignored. 

The  readiness  with  which  party  organization  lends  itself  to 
the  service  of  temporary  manias  and  recognized  delusions  pro- 
ceeds from  an  instinct  of  self-preservation.  Everywhere  the  ins 
are  menanced  by  the  activity  of  the  outs,  prompt  to  seize  upon 
any  whim,  passion,  or  prejudice,  no  matter  how  foolish  or  nox- 
ious, if  it  can  be  turned  to  present  account.  Party  organization, 
therefore,  exploits  outbreaks  of  popular  folly  and  knavery,  and 
caters  to  the  prejudices  of  ignorance  and  fanaticism  in  a  way 
that  invests  them  with  fictitious  importance,  and  confers  upon 
them  inordinate  legislative  influence.  This  feature  of  American 
politics,  more  than  any  other,  causes  the  national  character  to 
be  misunderstood,  and  the  worth  of  democratic  institutions  to  be 
undervalued.  It  is  inferred  that  public  opinion  in  this  country 
is  subject  to  periodical  hallucinations,  that  there  is  a  popular 
contempt  of  authority,  and  a  frequent  recurrence  of  reckless  de- 
sires to  try  over  again  the  old  failures,  heedless  of  the  abundant 
instructions  of  history  and  the  warnings  of  our  national  experi- 
ence. This  is  a  mistake.  Folly  does  not  more  abound,  but  it 
is  magnified  in  force  and  effect  by  the  peculiar  conditions  of 
American  politics.  American  citizenship  is  probably  superior 
in  average  intelligence  to  that  of  any  other  country.  The  pub- 
lic press,  although  considerate  of  the  value  of  party  goodwill  to  an 
extent  that  unfits  it  for  fairly  representing  public  opinion,  must 
nevertheless  keep  that  in  view,  since  it  caters  to  the  public  at 
large,  and  not  merely  to  the  fraction  which  busies  itself  with 
politics ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  the  voice  of  the  press  is  differ- 
ent from  the  voice  of  party  on  questions  of  public  policy.  Sanity 
and  conservatism  prevail  in  the  tone  of  the  press,  even  when 


Party  Organization  173 

party  organization  is  most  supple  and  accommodating  to  the 
folly  of  the  hour. 

Party  organization  not  being  directly  burdened  by  the  diffi- 
culties and  necessities  of  government  feels  at  liberty  to  court 
public  opinion  in  all  its  vagaries.  Great  art  is  employed  in 
framing  platforms  so  as  to  be  susceptible  to  various  interpreta- 
tions. Concerning  issues  which  are  settled,  party  speaks  in  a 
clear,  sonorous  voice.  But  on  new  issues  it  mumbles  and  quibbles. 
Subdivisions  of  the  party  organization  make  such  professions  as 
will  pay  the  best  in  their  respective  fields  of  activity.  If  the 
issue  cannot  be  dodged,  straddling  may  be  resorted  to.  Declara- 
tions really  incongruous  in  their  nature  are  coupled,  and  their 
inconsistency  is  cloaked  by  rhetorical  artifice.  Sometimes  such 
expedients  are  employed  as  making  the  platform  lean  one  way 
and  putting  on  it  a  candidate  who  leans  the  other  way,  or  candi- 
dates representing  opposing  ideas  and  tendencies  are  put  upon 
the  same  ticket.  Such  practices  are  results  of  the  ordinary  in- 
stincts of  party  in  all  countries,  and  obtain  such  monstrous 
growth  in  America  because  of  extraordinarily  favorable  condi- 
tions. Party  never  commits  itself  to  any  new  undertaking  until 
it  has  to.  In  England  there  must  be  a  long  period  of  agitation 
and  education  of  public  sentiment  before  a  new  issue  is  raised 
to  the  rank  of  what  is  known  as  a  cabinet  question,  but  when 
that  time  arrives,  party  is  in  a  position  to  enter  into  exact  and 
specific  engagements  as  to  the  disposition  which  will  be  made  of 
it.  In  this  country  the  only  way  in  which  party  can  be  forced 
into  such  a  position  is  through  the  exigencies  of  the  national 
administration.  Whatever  may  be  the  policy  then  adopted,  it 
puts  upon  party  the  necessity  of  acquiescence  or  dissent  in  a  way 
that  requires  a  categorical  response  to  the  demands  of  public 
opinion. 

In  the  discharge  of  this  function  national  party  organiza- 
tion claims  and  exercises  supreme  jurisdiction.  When  it  reaches 
its  decision,  all  indulgence  of  local  heterodoxy  disappears  and  is 
succeeded  by  a  ferocious  intolerance.  State  and  local  party  lead- 


174  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

ers  must  submit  on  penalty  of  excommunication.  The  coercive 
force  which  party  organization  then  develops  was  strikingly 
manifested  by  the  way  in  which  the  Democratic  platform  of 
1896  was  forced  upon  dissenting  state  party  organizations. 
Some,  which  had  adopted  platforms  antagonistic  to  the  plat- 
form of  the  national  party,  were  compelled  to  meet  and  eat  their 
words.  It  is  the  established  principle  of  American  politics  that 
fidelity  to  the  national  platform  is  the  crucial  test  of  party  ortho- 
doxy. Hence  national  issues  are  the  controlling  force  in  poli- 
tics. Attempting  to  reform  state  or  local  politics,  while  ignoring 
national  politics,  is  like  expecting  to  accomplish  a  local  purifica- 
tion of  the  atmosphere  by  palisading  a  patch  of  ground  in  a 
swamp.  A  little  may  be  done,  but  not  much.  It  follows  that, 
in  this  country,  —  as  was  the  case  in  England,  —  the  effectual 
purification  of  our  politics  will  begin  with  national  politics  and 
will  spread  from  them  to  local  politics. 

The  pliable  and  time-serving  disposition  of  party,  which  is 
the  natural  consequence  of  its  own  anxious  calculation  of  its 
business  interests,  prepares  for  its  tremendous  reverses.  It  be- 
comes committed  to  methods  of  administration  and  courses  of 
policy  inimical  to  the  public  interest,  so  that  there  comes  a  time 
when  genuine  public  opinion  is  roused  to  action  with  a  vigor 
which  nothing  can  withstand.  The  shelters  of  falsehood  and 
the  refuges  of  deceit  are  swept  away,  as  by  the  blast  of  a  hurri- 
cane, and  the  discomfited  party  managers  lie  choking  and  dum- 
founded  in  the  dust  and  the  wreckage.  The  readiness  of  the 
people  to  treat  their  great  national  parties  in  this  way  must 
eventually  beat  those  parties  into  serviceable  tools  of  govern- 
ment or  break  them  up  to  make  room  for  better  material.  The 
situation  confronts  political  leaders  with  problems  of  party  con- 
trol and  discipline,  whose  solution  tends  to  improve  the  appara- 
tus of  government.  The  results  of  this  tendency  are  already  very 
plainly  marked  in  the  improvement  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives ;  but  far  more  extensive  changes  must  take  place  in  all  the 
organs  of  government  before  the  rule  of  public  opinion  is  defi- 


Party  Organization  175 

nitely  established.  The  present  inadequacy  of  party  organiza- 
tion for  a  true  representation  of  public  opinion  is  so  exasperating 
to  impatient  reformers  that  they  would  like  to  shatter  it  to  bits ; 
but  that  is  not  the  way  to  better  the  state  of  affairs.  Party 
rises  to  new  occasions  by  consulting  its  own  interests.  This 
consultative  faculty  in  party  organization,  mischievous  as  seems 
to  be  its  irregular  and  irresponsible  operation,  is  that  which  sus- 
tains political  development,  and  eventually  it  will  perfect  the 
democratic  type  of  government. 

2.     WHAT  THE  PARTY  MACHINE  HAS  TO  DO  l 

The  enormous  amount  of  routine  work  done  by  the  party 
organization  in  the  United  States  is  done  quietly  and  attracts 
but  little  public  attention.  It  extends  all  through  the  year  and 
requires  organizing  ability  of  the  highest  order. 

In  Europe  a  citizen  rarely  votes  more  than  twice  or  thrice  a 
year,  sometimes  less  often,  and  usually  for  only  one  person  at  a 
time.  Thus  in  England  any  householder,  say  at  Manchester  or 
Liverpool,  votes  once  a  year  for  a  town  councillor  (if  there  is  a 
contest  in  his  ward) ;  once  in  four  years  (on  an  average)  for  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Allowing  for  the  frequent 
cases  in  which  there  is  no  municipal  contest  in  his  ward,  he  will 
not  on  an  average  vote  more  than  once  and  a  half  times  each 
year.  It  is  much  the  same  in  Scotland,  nor  do  elections  seem  to 
be  more  frequent  in  France,  Germany,  or  Italy,  or  even  perhaps 
in  Switzerland. 

In  the  United  States,  however,  the  number  of  elective  offices 
is  so  enormous  and  the  terms  of  office  usually  so  short  that  the 
voter  is  not  only  very  frequently  called  upon  to  go  to  the  polls, 
but  has  a  very  large  number  of  candidates  placed  before  him 
from  among  whom  he  must  choose  those  whom  he  prefers. 
Moreover,  besides  voting  at  the  regular  election,  he  ought  also 

1  Bryce,  J.,  The  American  Commonwealth.  Macmillan,  New  York,  1910; 
Vol.  II,  pp.  93-100. 


ij6  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

to  vote  at  primaries,  i.e.  to  vote  to  select  the  candidates  from 
among  whom  he  is  subsequently  to  choose  those  whom  he  desires 
to  have  as  officers ;  while  in  many  States  the  law  now  fixes  the 
day  and  manner  in  which  he  ought  to  do  so.  .  . 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  a  European  who  contemplates  the 
party  organization  which  works  this  elaborate  elective  system  is 
the  great  mass  of  work  it  has  to  do.  In  Ohio,  for  instance,  there 
are,  if  we  count  in  such  unpaid  offices  as  are  important  in  the 
eyes  of  politicians,  on  an  average  of  more  than  twenty  offices  to 
be  filled  annually  by  election.  Primaries  or  conventions  have 
to  select  candidates  for  all  of  these.  Managing  committees  have 
to  organize  the  primaries,  "run"  the  conventions,  conduct  the 
elections.  Here  is  ample  occupation  for  a  professional  class. 

What  are  the  results  which  one  may  expect  this  abundance  of 
offices  and  elections  to  produce  ? 

Where  the  business  is  that  of  selecting  delegates  and,  in  the 
particular  State,  the  selection  of  candidates  is  made  by  the  older 
kind  of  primaries  and  conventions,  it  will  be  hard  to  find  an  ade- 
quate number  of  men  of  any  mark  or  superior  intelligence  to  act 
as  delegates.  The  bulk  will  be  persons  unlikely  to  possess,  still 
more  unlikely  to  exercise,  a  careful  or  independent  judgment. 
The  function  of  delegate  being  in  the  case  of  most  conventions 
humble  and  uninteresting,  because  the  offices  are  unattractive 
to  good  men,  persons  whose  time  is  valuable  will  not,  even  if 
they  do  exist  in  sufficient  numbers,  seek  it.  Hence  the  best 
citizens,  i.e.  the  men  of  position  and  intelligence,  will  leave  the 
field  open  to  inferior  persons  who  have  any  private  or  personal 
reason  for  desiring  to  become  delegates.  I  do  not  mean  to  imply 
that  there  is  necessarily  any  evil  in  this  as  regards  most  of  the 
offices,  but  mention  the  fact  to  explain  why  few  men  of  good  so- 
cial position  think  of  the  office  of  delegate,  except  to  the  National 
Convention  once  in  four  years,  as  one  of  trust  or  honour. 

If  on  the  other  hand  the  new  statutory  primaries  have  in  the 
particular  state  superseded  conventions,  then  the  attendance  at 
these  primaries  and  the  choice  of  candidates  there  is  a  serious 


Party  Organization  177 

task  thrown  on  the  voter  for  which  his  knowledge  of  the  persons 
from  whom  candidates  are  to  be  selected  may  be  quite 
inadequate.  .  . 

The  number  of  places  to  be  filled  by  election  being  very  large, 
ordinary  citizens  will  find  it  hard  to  form  an  opinion  as  to  the 
men  best  qualified  for  the  offices.  Their  minds  will  be  distracted 
among  the  multiplicity  of  places.  In  large  cities  particularly, 
where  people  know  little  about  their  neighbors,  the  names  of 
most  candidates  will  be  unknown  to  them,  and  there  will  be  no 
materials,  except  the  recommendation  of  a  party  organization, 
available  for  determining  the  respective  fitness  of  the  candidates 
put  forward  by  the  several  parties.  .  . 

Those  who  have  had  experience  of  public  meetings  know  that 
to  make  them  go  off  well,  it  is  as  desirable  to  have  the  proceed- 
ings prearranged  as  it  is  to  have  a  play  rehearsed.  You  must 
select  beforehand  not  only  your  chairman,  but  also  your  speakers. 
Your  resolutions  must  be  ready  framed ;  you  must  be  prepared 
to  meet  the  case  of  an  adverse  resolution  or  hostile  amendment. 
This  is  still  more  advisable  where  the  meeting  is  intended  to 
transact  some  business,  instead  of  merely  expressing  its  opinion  ; 
and  when  certain  persons  are  to  be  selected  for  any  duty,  pre- 
arrangement  becomes  not  merely  convenient  but  indispensable 
in  the  interests  of  the  meeting  itself,  and  of  the  business  which 
it  has  to  dispatch.  "Does  not  prearrangement  practically  cur- 
tail the  freedom  of  the  meeting  ?  "  Certainly  it  does.  But  the 
alternative  is  confusion  and  a  hasty  un considered  decision. 
Crowds  need  to  be  led ;  if  you  do  not  lead  them  they  will  go 
astray,  will  follow  the  most  plausible  speaker,  will  break  into  frac- 
tions and  accomplish  nothing.  Hence  if  a  primary  of  the  older 
type  is  to  discharge  properly  its  function  of  selecting  candidates 
for  office  or  a  number  of  delegates  to  a  nominating  convention,  it 
is  necessary  to  have  a  list  of  candidates  or  delegates  settled  be- 
forehand. And  for  the  reasons  already  given,  the  more  numer- 
ous the  offices  and  the  delegates,  the  less  interesting  the  duties 
they  have  to  discharge,  so  much  the  more  necessary  is  it  to  have 


178  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

such  lists  settled;  and  so  much  the  more  likely  to  be  accepted 
by  those  present  is  the  list  proposed.  On  the  other  hand  the 
new  statutory  primary  intended  to  secure  the  freedom  of  the 
voter  is  also  so  complex  a  matter  that  preliminary  steps  must 
be  taken  by  experts  familiar  with  the  law  and  practice  govern- 
ing it. 

3.     HOW  THE  PARTY  IS   ORGANIZED1 

A  large  part  of  the  work  of  the  party  near  election  time 
is  the  listing  of  the  voters,  and  the  establishment  of  their  right 
to  vote  through  proper  registration. 

Let  us  see  how  the  politician  goes  to  work  to  carry  an  elec- 
tion. .  . 

As  I  write,  I  have  before  me  some  pages  from  the  poll-books 
and  check-books  of  one  of  the  county  committees  in  the  State  of 
New  York.  Before  registration  day  a  thorough  canvass  is  made 
of  each, election  district.  The  names  of  all  of  the  voters  are  ar- 
ranged in  these  poll-books  alphabetically.  After  the  column  of 
names  comes  a  series  of  columns  headed,  respectively,  Republi- 
can, Democrat,  Prohibition,  Doubtful,  Post-office  Address, 
Occupation,  and  Remarks.  Each  voter's  address  is  taken,  and 
opposite  his  name  is  placed  a  mark  in  the  proper  column  showing 
whether  he  is  a  regular  Republican,  a  Democrat,  or  a  Prohibition 
voter,  or  whether  he  is  to  be  considered  a  "doubtful."  After 
registration  day,  each  man  who  registers  has  his  name  checked 
in  the  poll-book,  so  that  the  committees  of  both  parties  have  a 
complete  list  of  all  those  entitled  to  vote  in  each  district.  From 
this  book,  then,  a  check-book  is  prepared.  In  this  second  book, 
if  I  take  as  an  example  the  check-book  of  the  Republican  party, 
on  each  page  will  be  arranged  in  the  first  place,  alphabetically 
the  names  of  all  the  Republicans  in  the  district ;  then  in  a  column 

1  Jenks,  J.  W.,  "  Money  in  Practical  Politics."  Century,  Vol.  44, 1892 ; 
p.  941. 


Party  Organization  179 

below,  or  on  another  page,  all  those  that  are  considered  doubtful ; 
that  is,  those  whose  politics  are  not  known,  and  those  whose  votes 
it  is  thought  possible  to  bring  to  the  Republican  party  either  by 
persuasion  or  by  purchase.  The  Democratic  committees  have 
books  similarly  arranged,  with  the  names  of  all  the  sound  Demo- 
crats and  of  the  "  doubtful  "... 

On  election  day,  then,  it  is  an  easy  matter  for  the  poll-book 
holder,  standing  by  the  polls,  to  check  the  name  of  every  reli- 
able party  man  as  he  comes  to  vote,  and  near  the  end  of  the  day 
to  find  out  how  many  men  of  his  own  party  have  not  yet  voted. 
He  can  then  readily  send  a  messenger  to  bring  in  any  late  or 
careless  voters,  the  character  of  whose  votes  is  not  doubtful. 
The  workers  of  each  party,  having  thus  a  complete  list  of  all 
doubtful  or  purchasable  voters,  will  know  how  to  handle  them. 

4.     A  DAY  WITH  A   LOCAL  POLITICIAN  1 

A  party  leader  in  a  large  city  has  numerous  duties  not  imposed 
by  law  but  which  he  must  perform  if  he  is  to  keep  his  party 
vote  well  in  hand  for  the  ever  coming  elections. 

2  A.M.  —  Aroused  from  sleep  by  the  ringing  of  his  door  bell ; 
went  to  the  door  and  found  a  bartender,  who  asked  him  to  go  to 
the  police  station  and  bail  out  a  saloonkeeper,  who  had  been 
arrested  for  violating  the  Excise  law.  Furnished  bail  and 
returned  to  bed  at  three  o'clock. 

6  A.M.  —  Awakened  by  fire  engines  passing  his  house.  Has- 
tened to  the  scene  of  the  fire,  according  to  the  custom  of  Tam- 
many district  leaders,  to  give  assistance  to  the  fire  sufferers,  if 
needed.  Met  several  election  district  captains  who  are  always 
under  orders  to  look  out  for  fires,  which  are  considered  great 
vote-getters.  Found  several  tenants  who  had  been  burned  out, 
took  them  to  a  hotel,  supplied  them  with  clothes,  fed  them,  and 
arranged  temporary  quarters  for  them  until  they  could  rent  and 
furnish  new  apartments. 

1  Evening  Post,  New  York,  Dec.  14,  1907. 


180  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

8.30  A.M.  —  Went  to  the  police  court  to  look  after  his  con- 
stituents. Found  six  "drunks."  Secured  the  discharge  of  four 
by  a  timely  word  with  the  judge,  and  paid  the  fines  of  two. 

9  A.M.  —  Appeared  in  the  Municipal  District  Court.  Directed 
one  of  his  district  captains  to  act  as  counsel  for  a  widow  against 
whom  dispossession  proceedings  had  been  instituted  and  ob- 
tained an  extension  of  time.  Paid  the  rent  of  a  poor  family 
about  to  be  dispossessed,  and  gave  them  a  dollar  for  food. 

ii  A.M.  —  At  home  again.  Found  four  men  waiting  for  him. 
One  had  been  discharged  by  the  Metropolitan  Railway  Company 
for  neglect  of  duty,  and  wanted  the  district  leader  to  fix  things. 
Another  wanted  a  job  on  the  road.  The  third  sought  a  place 
on  the  subway,  and  the  fourth,  a  plumber,  was  looking  for  work 
with  the  Consolidated  Gas  Company.  The  district  leader 
spent  nearly  three  hours  fixing  things  for  the  four  men,  and  suc- 
ceeded in  each  case. 

3  P.M.  —  Attended  the  funeral  of  an  Italian  as  far  as  the  ferry. 
Hurried  back  to  make  his  appearance  at  the  funeral  of  a  Hebrew 
constituent.  Went  conspicuously  to  the  front  both  in  the  Catho- 
lic church  and  the  synagogue,  and  later  attended  the  Hebrew 
confirmation  ceremonies  in  the  synagogue. 

7  P.M.  —  Went  to  district  headquarters  and  presided  over  a 
meeting  of  election-district  captains.     Each  captain  submitted 
a  list  of  all  the  voters  in  the  district,  reported  on  their  attitude 
toward  Tammany,  suggested  who  might  be  won  over  and  how 
they  could  be  won,  told  who  were  in  need,  and  who  were  in 
trouble  of  any  kind  and  the  best  way  to  reach  them.     District 
leader  took  notes  and  gave  orders. 

8  P.M.  —  Went  to  a  church  fair.     Took  chances  on  everything, 
bought  ice-cream  for  the  young  girls  and  the  children.     Kissed 
the  little  ones,  flattered  their  mothers,  and  took  their  fathers  out 
for  something  down  at  the  corner. 

9  P.M.  —  At  the  clubhouse  again.     Spent  $10  on  tickets  for  a 
church  excursion  and  promised  a  subscription  for  a  new  church 
bell.     Bought  tickets  for  a  baseball  game  to  be  played  by  two 


Party  Organization  181 

nines  from  his  district.  Listened  to  the  complaints  of  a  dozen 
pushcart  peddlers  who  said  they  were  persecuted  by  the  police 
and  assured  them  he  would  go  to  Police  Headquarters  in  the 
morning  and  see  about  it. 

10.30  P.M.  —  Attended  a  Hebrew  wedding  reception  and  dance. 
Had  previously  sent  a  handsome  wedding  present  to  the  bride. 

12  P.M.  —  In  bed. 

5.     POLITICAL  CLUBS  1 

Political  clubs,  especially  during  the  period  of  the  campaign, 
are  one  of  the  most  effective  means  of  arousing  popular  interest 
and  cultivating  party  loyalty.  There  are  besides  more  formal 
organizations  which  act  not  only  during  campaigns.  Many 
of  these  are  like  other  social  clubs  except  for  the  addition  of 
allegiance  to  a  political  party  as  a  qualification  for  member- 
ship. 

The  American  political  clubs  last  only  for  the  campaign. 
Permanent  political  clubs  are  not  entirely  unknown  in  the  States. 
In  New  York,  in  Philadelphia,  and  in  several  other  important 
centres,  there  are,  of  course,  large  party  clubs,  but  they  are  rather 
social  than  political,  and,  like  all  American  clubs,  are  more  aristo- 
cratic than  the  English  clubs.  The  absence  of  a  nobility,  of  an 
upper  class  created  by  the  law  and  recognized  by  the  national 
manners,  is  made  up  for  in  certain  American  cities  by  coteries, 
which  form  into  magic  circles,  to  which  admittance  can  be  gained 
only  by  showing  one's  credentials,  or  what  they  are  pleased  to 
consider  as  such.  This  tendency  to  social  exclusiveness  has  not 
spared  the  select  political  clubs.  But  with  that  they  are  much 
less  homogeneous  than  the  English  clubs  as  regards  the  political 
views  of  their  members,  because  social  conditions  fill  too  large  a 
place  in  the  choice  of  the  members,  and  especially  because  the 
latter  are  getting  to  change  their  party  more  and  more  frequently, 

1  Ostrogorski,  M.,  Democracy  and  the  Party  System.  Macmillan,  New 
York,  1910;  pp.  166-170. 


1 82  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

while  remaining  members  of  the  club.  Lastly  social  relations  in 
the  United  States,  while  sometimes  painfully  narrow,  are  super- 
ficial, and,  amid  the  kaleidoscopic  existence  of  the  Americans, 
lack  the  stability  which  would  give  them  the  property  of  a  polit- 
ical cement. 

Alongside  these  political  clubs,  which  are  little  distinguishable 
from  non-political  ones,  there  are  others,  in  several  large  cities, 
of  a  much  less  exalted  kind,  whose  members  are  almost  all  poli- 
ticians, and,  for  the  most  part,  politicians  of  low  degree.  Apart 
from  the  mercenaries  of  pclitics,  the  "workers,"  they  are  fre- 
quented only  by  the  men  who  buy  their  influence,  such  as  con- 
tractors for  public  works  and  government  purveyors.  The  most 
distinguished  of  these  clubs,  if  it  is  permissible  to  use  the  epithet, 
is  the  Democratic  Club  of  Tammany  Hall  in  New  York.  The 
subscription  to  the  clubs  is  purely  nominal;  the  expenses  are 
almost  always  borne  by  a  head  politician,  a  "leader,"  who  makes 
the  club  the  citadel  from  which  he  directs  the  political  operations 
necessary  for  getting  hold  of  an  elective  post  for  himself  or  for 
his  favourite  candidate.  The  clubs  of  the  politicians  combine 
politics  and  pleasure,  by  organizing  balls  in  winter,  excursions 
in  summer,  outings,  "chowder  parties,"  or  "clam  bakes";  but 
even  in  these  cases,  the  politicians  keep  to  themselves  and  their 
own  set  without  attracting  the  bulk  of  the  electorate. 

At  the  end  of  the  eighties  of  the  last  century  attempts  were 
made  to  develop  the  system  of  permanent  clubs  and  to  recruit 
their  members  on  a  broader  basis.  The  Republicans  formed 
clubs  all  over  the  territory,  and  combined  them  into  a  national 
federation,  the  Republican  National  League.  In  reality  most 
of  the  clubs  have  only  a  nominal  existence,  —  hardly  one  club 
in  a  hundred  has  premises  of  its  own ;  generally  they  hire  a  room 
for  the  occasion,  and  their  meetings  are  few  and  far  between. 
The  members  are,  to  a  great  extent,  officeseekers,  and  young 
men  attracted  by  the  titles  of  president,  vice-president,  and  other 
dignities  which  the  clubs  provide  for  their  youthful  vanity.  The 
Democrats  have  followed  the  example  set  by  their  rivals,  but 


Party  Organization  183 

their  National  Association  of  clubs  collapsed  some  time  ago  owing 
to  internal  divisions.  The  Republican  National  League,  how- 
ever, is  not  much  more  of  a  living  body. 

There  are,  however,  permanent  clubs  and  in  very  large 
numbers,  which,  without  bearing  this  name,  and  without  hav- 
ing any  ostensible  connection  with  politics,  wield  very  great 
electoral  influence.  These  are  the  drinking-saloons,  especially 
in  the  large  cities.  With  the  lower  orders,  who  spend  their 
leisure  time  in  the  bars,  the  saloon-keeper  is  "guide,  philosopher, 
and  friend."  The  party  organizations  and  the  candidates  there- 
fore find  him  their  most  valuable  helper  for  manipulating  the 
electorate. 

Of  course,  the  drinking-saloons  take  in  only  the  dregs  of  the 
population.  To  lay  hand  on  the  higher  strata  of  the  voters,  the 
election  organizers  form  for  the  duration  of  the  campaign  "cam- 
paign clubs"  of  citizens  who  in  ordinary  times  pay  little  or  no 
heed  to  politics.  The  great  date  of  the  presidential  election  re- 
minds them  of  their  civic  duty.  They  respond  piously  to  this 
sacred  appeal  and  enroll  themselves  in  a  club  flying  the  colours 
of  their  party  or  of  its  candidate  for  the  Presidency.  For  the 
two  or  three  months  that  the  campaign  will  last,  they  meet,  per- 
haps, every  evening,  they  listen  to  speeches  which  glorify  their 
candidate,  they  sing  political  songs,  absorb  enthusiasm  for  the 
party  ticket,  and  diffuse  this  enthusiasm  around  them,  in  the 
club  and  outside  it.  This  action  and  reaction  comes  all  the  easier 
to  them  since,  very  often,  they  do  not  present  fortuitous  aggre- 
gations of  atoms  brought  together  in  a  haphazard  way,  but 
groups  formed  in  accordance  with  more  or  less  natural  affinities, 
due  to  a  common  occupation,  race,  or  religion.  Thus  each  Presi- 
dential campaign  is  the  signal  for  an  outburst  of  clubs,  Republi- 
can and  Democratic,  of  commercial  travellers,  of  clerks  of  dry- 
goods  stores,  of  lawyers,  of  merchants,  of  railroad  employees ;  of 
workmen's  clubs  formed,  not  by  wards,  but  by  workshops,  the 
workmen  in  a  large  factory  dividing,  perhaps,  into  two  clubs, 
the  one  Republican,  the  other  Democratic;  clubs  of  coloured 


184  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

men ;  Irish,  German,  Jewish,  Polish,  Swedish  clubs ;  and  even 
Republican  or  Democratic  "cyclists'  brigades. " 

A  special  kind  of  campaign  clubs  are  "marching  clubs,"  with 
the  particular  duty  of  walking  about  in  procession  and  making  a 
noise  in  the  streets  and  squares,  in  honour  of  the  party  and  its 
candidates.  We  have  already  come  across  clubs  of  this  kind  in 
the  city  where  the  National  Convention  was  held,  and  where 
they  carried  on  a  gymnastic  and  vocal  propaganda  in  favour  of 
the  presidential  aspirants.  Their  usefulness  to  the  parties  is  of 
a  twofold  kind:  they  help  greatly  to  keep  up  "enthusiasm," 
and  they  gather  to  their  standard  young  electors  attracted  by 
the  quasi-military  organization  of  these  clubs;  their  members 
wear  a  special  uniform  and  hold  varied  grades,  such  as  captain 
and  colonel. 

Of  late  years  the  craze  for  campaign  clubs  has  spread  to  the 
schools,  the  colleges.  In  almost  every  college  or  university  there 
are  formed,  for  the  duration  of  the  campaign,  clubs  of  students 
to  help  the  parties  by  speaking  or  by  other  forms  of  propaganda. 

The  number  of  electors  enrolled  in  the  campaign  clubs  is  un- 
doubtedly very  considerable,  and  can  hardly  be  below  1,500,- 
ooo  or  2,000,000.  If  to  these  volunteer  forces  are  added  the 
paid  combatants,  they  will  all  together,  with  the  regular  army 
of  the  party  organizations,  make  up  the  enormous  total  of 
4,000,000  out  of  an  electoral  population  of  15,000,000  or  18,000,- 
ooo.  That  is  to  say,  there  is  one  militant,  entering  heart  and  soul 
into  the  fray,  to  every  four  or  five  electors. 

6.  THE  CONTRAST  OF  COUNTRY  AND  CITY  ELECTORATES  l 

City  and  country  electorates  have  become  sharply  contrasted, 
due  to  the  floating  character  of  city  population,  and  the  impossi- 
bility of  acquaintance  with  all  the  voters.  The  different  work 
to  be  done  necessitates  different  methods  of  party  organization. 

1  Bryce,  J.,  The  American  Commonwealth.    Macmillan,  New  York,  1910; 
fol.  II,  pp.  101-104. 


Party  Organization  185 

To  understand  how  (the  electoral  machinery)  actually  works 
one  must  distinguish  between  two  kinds  of  constituencies  or  vot- 
ing areas.  One  kind  is  to  be  found  in  the  great  cities  —  places 
whose  population  exceeds,  speaking  roughly,  100,000  souls,  of 
which  there  were  in  1910  over  forty  in  the  Union.  The  other 
kind  includes  constituencies  in  smaller  cities  and  rural  districts. 
What  I  have  to  say  will  refer  chiefly  to  the  Northern  States  —  i.e. 
the  former  Free  States,  because  the  phenomena  of  the  Southern 
States  are  still  exceptional,  owing  to  the  vast  population  of  igno- 
rant negroes,  among  whom  the  whites,  or  rather  the  better  sort 
of  whites,  still  stand  as  an  aristocracy. 

The  tests  by  which  one  may  try  the  results  of  the  system  of 
selecting  candidates  are  two.  Is  the  choice  of  candidates  for 
office  really  free  —  i.e.  does  it  represent  the  unbiassed  wish  and 
mind  of  the  voters  generally  ?  Are  the  offices  filled  by  men  of 
probity  and  capacity  sufficient  for  the  duties  ? 

In  the  country  generally,  i.e.  in  the  rural  districts  and  small 
cities,  both  these  tests  are  tolerably  well  satisfied.  It  is  true 
that  many  of  the  voters  do  not  attend  the  primaries.  The  se- 
lection of  delegates  and  candidates  is  left  to  be  made  by  that  sec- 
tion of  the  population  which  chiefly  interests  itself  in  politics; 
and  in  this  section  local  attorneys  and  office-seekers  have  much 
influence.  The  persons  who  seek  the  post  of  delegate  as  well  as 
those  who  seek  office,  are  seldom  the  most  energetic  and  intelli- 
gent citizens ;  but  that  is  because  the  latter  class  have  something 
better  to  do.  An  observer  from  Europe  who  looks  to  see  men 
of  rank  and  culture  holding  the  same  place  in  State  and  local 
government  as  they  do  in  England,  especially  rural  England,  or 
in  Italy,  or  even  in  parts  of  rural  France  and  Switzerland,  will 
be  disappointed.  But  democracies  must  be  democratic.  Equal- 
ity will  have  its  perfect  work ;  and  you  cannot  expect  citizens 
pervaded  by  its  spirit  to  go  cap  in  hand  to  their  richer  neighbours 
begging  them  to  act  as  delegates,  or  city  or  county  officials,  or 
congressmen.  This  much  may  be  said,  that  although  there  is  in 
America  no  difference  of  rank  in  the  European  sense,  superior 


1 86  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

wealth  or  intelligence  does  not  prejudice  a  man's  candidature, 
and  in  most  places  improves  its  chance.  If  such  men  are  not 
commonly  chosen  it  is  for  the  same  reason  which  makes  them 
comparatively  scarce  among  the  town -councillors  of  English 
municipalities. 

In  these  primaries  and  conventions  the  business  is  always  pre- 
arranged—  that  is  to  say,  the  local  party  committee  come 
prepared  with  their  list  of  delegates  or  candidates.  This  list  is 
usually,  but  not  invariably,  accepted ;  or,  if  serious  opposition 
appears,  alterations  may  be  made  to  disarm  it,  and  preserve  the 
unity  of  the  party.  The  delegates  and  candidates  chosen  are 
generally  members  of  the  local  committee,  their  friends  or  crea- 
tures. Except  in  very  small  places,  they  are  rarely  the  best  men. 
But  neither  are  they  the  worst.  In  moderate-sized  communities 
men's  characters  are  known  and  the  presence  of  a  bad  man  in 
office  brings  on  his  fellow-citizens  evils  which  they  are  not  too 
numerous  to  feel  individually.  Hence  tolerable  nominations 
are  made :  the  general  sentiment  of  the  locality  is  not  outraged ; 
and  although  the  nominating  machinery  is  worked  rather  in 
the  name  of  the  people  than  by  the  people,  the  people  are  willing 
to  have  it  so,  knowing  that  they  can  interfere  if  necessary  to 
prevent  serious  harm. 

In  large  cities  the  results  are  different  because  the  circum- 
stances are  different.  We.find  there,  besides  the  conditions  pre- 
viously enumerated,  —  viz.  numerous  offices,  frequent  elections, 
universal  suffrage,  an  absence  of  stimulating  issues,  —  three 
others  of  great  moment. 

A  vast  population  of  ignorant  immigrants. 

The  leading  men  all  intensely  occupied  with  business. 

Communities  so  large  that  people  know  little  of  one  another, 
and  that  the  interest  of  each  individual  in  good  government  is 
comparatively  small. 

Any  one  can  see  how  these  conditions  affect  the  problem.  The 
immigrants  are  entitled  to  obtain  a  vote  after  three  or  four  years' 
residence  at  most  (often  less),  but  they  are  not  fit  for  the  suffrage. 


Party  Organization  187 

They  know  nothing  of  the  institutions  of  the  country,  of  its 
statesmen,  of  its  political  issues.  Those  especially  who  come 
from  Central  and  Southern  Europe  bring  little  knowledge  of 
the  methods  of  free  government,  and  from  Ireland  they  used  to 
bring  a  suspicion  of  all  government.  Incompetent  to  give  an 
intelligent  vote,  but  soon  finding  that  their  vote  has  a  value, 
they  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  party  organizations,  whose  offi- 
cers enroll  them  in  their  lists,  and  undertake  to  fetch  them  to 
the  polls  .  .  . 

In  these  great  transatlantic  cities,  population  is  far  less  set- 
tled and  permanent  than  in  the  cities  of  Europe.  In  New  York, 
Chicago,  St.  Louis,  Minneapolis,  San  Francisco,  a  very  small 
part  of  the  inhabitants  are  natives  of  the  city,  or  have  resided  in 
it  for  twenty  years.  Hence  they  know  but  little  of  one  another 
or  even  of  those  who  would  in  Europe  be  called  the  leading  men. 
There  are  scarcely  any  old  families,  families  associated  with  the 
city,  whose  name  recommends  one  of  their  scions  to  the  confi- 
dence of  his  fellow-citizens.  There  are  few  persons  who  have 
had  any  chance  of  becoming  generally  known,  except  through 
their  wealth ;  and  the  wealthy  have  neither  time  nor  taste  for 
political  work.  Political  work  is  a  bigger  and  heavier  affair 
than  in  small  communities ;  hence  ordinary  citizens  cannot  at- 
tend to  it  in  addition  to  their  regular  business.  Moreover,  the 
population  is  so  large  that  an  individual  citizen  feels  himself  a 
drop  in  the  ocean.  His  power  of  affecting  public  affairs  by 
his  own  intervention  seems  insignificant.  His  pecuniary  loss 
through  over-taxation,  or  jobbery,  or  malversation,  is  trivial  in 
comparison  with  the  trouble  of  trying  to  prevent  such  evils. 

As  party  machinery  is  in  great  cities  most  easily  perverted, 
so  the  temptation  to  pervert  it  is  there  strongest,  because  the 
prizes  are  great.  The  offices  are  well  paid,  the  patronage  is 
large,  the  opportunities  for  jobs,  commissions  on  contracts, 
pickings,  and  even  stealings,  are  enormous.  Hence  it  is  well 
worth  the  while  of  unscrupulous  men  to  gain  control  of  the  ma- 
chinery by  which  these  prizes  may  be  won. 


1 88  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

7.     STATE  CENTRAL  COMMITTEES  L 

The  active  management  of  the  party  machinery  is  largely  cen- 
tralized in  the  hands  of  the  State  Central  Committee. 

The  purpose  of  this  sketch  is  to  present  a  brief  outline  of 
the  organization  of  the  central  or  executive  committees  of  the 
Republican  and  Democratic  parties  in  the  several  states.  .  . 

Apportionment  of  membership.  On  examining  the  method  of 
apportionment  of  membership  on  the  committees,  it  appears 
that  several  different  systems  are  in  vogue.  The  various  units 
on  which  representation  is  based  are  the  congressional  district, 
the  county,  the  legislative  district,  representative  or  senatorial, 
the  judicial  district,  and  the  town.  There  is  also  a  mixed  or 
composite  basis.  The  prevailing  practice  is  to  use  either  the 
congressional  district  or  the  county  as  the  unit  of  representation. 
Of  the  Republican  organizations  fifteen  use  the  congressional 
district,  and  of  the  Democratic,  twelve,  making  a  total  of  twenty- 
seven.  The  county  is  the  unit  in  sixteen  Republican  committees 
and  in  twenty  of  the  Democratic,  making  in  all  thirty-six.  Of 
the  ninety  organizations,  then,  sixty- three  employ  either  the  con- 
gressional district  or  the  county  as  the  unit  of  representation. 
The  legislative  district  is  the  basis  in  fourteen  committees,  nine 
Republican  and  five  Democratic.  The  judicial  district  is  used 
in  two  cases  and  the  town  in  a  like  number.  In  some  cases  a 
mixed  system  is  found,  combining  several  methods.  Of  these 
the  most  remarkable  is  that  of  the  Idaho  Democratic  committee, 
in  which  one  member  is  taken  from  each  of  the  five  judicial  dis- 
tricts, two  are  taken  from  each  of  the  twenty-one  counties,  seven 
are  chosen  at  large,  and  three  so-called  "press  members"  are  se- 
lected in  addition.  .  .  Which  of  these  various  methods  shall 
be  employed  is  determined  by  geographical  rather  than  party 
considerations.  .  . 

The  apportionment  of  members   to   these  various   units  is 

1  Merriam,  C.  E.,  Political  Science  Quarterly,  1904;   pp.  224-233. 


Party  Organization  189 

based  on  geographical  or  territorial  rather  than  numerical 
considerations.  It  is,  in  the  main,  not  the  party  strength  that 
is  represented,  but  a  given  area  or  district.  In  some  instances, 
however,  recognition  is  given  to  the  vote  polled,  although  the 
principle  is  seldom  fully  carried  out.  .  . 

The  size  of  the  committee  varies  greatly  in  the  different 
states.  The  largest  is  the  Maryland  Republican  committee, 
which  contains  124  members.  .  .  Some  of  the  committees, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  comparatively  small.  Thus  the  Demo- 
cratic and  Republican  committees  of  Virginia  and  of  Iowa  are 
each  composed  of  only  eleven  members;  and  in  many  other 
states  the  committees  are  little  larger. 

Term  of  service.  —  The  term  of  membership  on  the  state  com- 
mittees varies  from  one  to  four  years,  but  the  most  common 
period  is  two  years.  .  . 

Method  of  election.  —  The  election  of  members  to  the  com- 
mittee follows  a  general  but  not  unvarying  rule.  In  most  cases 
the  delegates  to  the  state  convention  from  the  area  to  be  rep- 
resented, whether  this  be  the  congressional  district,  the  county 
or  some  other  area,  choose  their  quota  of  members.  For  this 
purpose  they  caucus  separately.  The  choice  of  the  caucus  is  usu- 
ally final,  but  in  some  cases  the  state  convention  has  the  right 
to  reject  the  members  selected.  In  some  states,  however,  the 
members  of  the  central  committee  are  not  selected  in  the  state 
convention,  but  by  the  local  authorities  in  the  counties.  .  . 

A  unique  method  of  choosing  the  state  committee  is  that  pro- 
vided for  in  the  Wisconsin  primary  law,  which  is  to  be  submitted 
to  popular  vote  in  1904.  Having  abolished  the  state  convention, 
the  law  proposes  that,  after  the  primaries,  the  party  nominees 
for  state  office  together  with  the  candidates  for  the  legislature 
shall  meet  and  choose  the  state  committee.  In  Mississippi, 
where  a  state-wide  direct  primary  law  has  been  adopted,  the 
state  convention  still  assembles  every  four  years,  and  at  that 
time  selects  the  state  central  committee. 

Vacancies  and  removals.  —  Vacancies  in  the  committee  are  in 


190  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

general  filled  by  the  remaining  members.  In  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  states,  however,  there  are  exceptions  to  this  rule.  In  states 
where  the  unit  of  representation  is  the  county,  the  power  to  fill  the 
vacancy  is  not  infrequently  lodged  in  the  local  committee.  .  . 

The  removal  of  members  from  the  state  committee  seems  not 
to  be  contemplated  at  all  in  some  states.  There  is  no  provision 
for  removal  in  the  state  constitution  of  the  party  and  there  is  no 
record  of  any  such  case.  The  chairman  of  the  Delaware  Re- 
publican organization  states,  in  reply  to  the  question  touching 
removal,  that  "  ostracism "  is  the  only  method  known  to  him; 
and  from  Iowa  comes  the  answer :  "  making  it  so  hot  for  him  that 
he  will  resign."  But  in  many  states  there  is  a  well  defined  un- 
derstanding as  to  the  process  by  which  a  recalcitrant  or  disloyal 
member  may  be  removed  from  the  managing  committee.  .  . 

Officers  and  sub-committees.  —  The  officers  of  a  state  com- 
mittee are  few  in  number.  There  is  a  chairman,  a  secretary,  a 
treasurer,  and  sometimes,  in  addition  to  these,  a  vice-chairman 
and  a  sergeant-at-arms.  These  functionaries  are  generally 
elected  by  the  committee  itself ;  but  they  need  not  be,  and  fre- 
quently are  not,  members  of  the  committee.  In  most  of  the 
organizations  there  are  sub-committees,  of  which  the  most  im- 
portant is  the  executive  or  campaign  committee.  This  is  usually 
composed  of  from  three  to  nine  members  and  is  the  most  active 
part  of  the  state  organization.  Another  important  committee 
is  that  on  finance,  and  in  many  state  organizations  there  is  a  sep- 
arate auditing  committee.  A  speakers'  bureau  or  literary  bureau 
or  both  are  frequently  found.  Of  all  the  officers  the  chairman 
and  the  secretary  of  the  whole  committee  are  the  most  important. 
Indeed  the  campaign  in  many  cases  is  really  placed  in  the  hands 
of  these  two  men. 

Powers.  —  The  powers  of  the  state  central  committee  are 
seldom  clearly  defined,  either  by  the  written  or  by  the  unwritten 
constitution  of  the  party.  It  can  scarcely  be  said  to  govern  and 
guide  the  party  in  the  formulation  and  execution  of  policies,  for 
as  a  rule  this  is  a  matter  altogether  outside  its  jurisdiction.  The 


Party  Organization  191 

informal  steering  or  managing  committee  which  really  determines 
the  policy  of  the  party  is  likely  to  be  another  group  of  politicians, 
although  the  actual  leaders  of  course  control  the  state  committee 
through  their  agents  and  are  sometimes  found  there  in  person. 
The  important  powers  and  duties  of  a  state  committee,  as  of  a 
national  committee,  center  in  the  conduct  of  the  campaign. 
Given  the  candidates  and  the  platform,  it  is  the  function  of  the 
state  committee  to  see  that  these  particular  persons  and  prin- 
ciples are  endorsed  by  the  voters  of  the  state,  or  at  least  that 
the  full  party  strength  is  polled  for  them.  The  state  committee 
determines  the  time  and  place  of  the  nominating  convention, 
fixes  the  ratio  of  representation,  and  issues  the  call  for  the  con- 
vention. It  often  makes  up  the  temporary  roll  of  the  conven- 
tion, suggests  temporary  officers  of  the  convention,  and  in  gen- 
eral assists  in  putting  the  machinery  of  the  nominating  body 
in  operation.  After  the  convention  is  over,  the  committee  takes 
charge  of  the  conduct  of  the  campaign  and  exercises  general 
supervision  over  its  progress.  The  committee  raises  the  funds 
necessary  for  the  prosecution  of  the  work  and  distributes  them 
at  its  discretion.  It  prepares  and  sends  out  appropriate  litera- 
ture to  strategic  points  within  the  state,  and  assigns  speakers  to 
places  where  it  is  supposed  they  will  be  most  effective.  In  short, 
the  state  committee  is  the  managing  board  entrusted  with  the 
conduct  of  the  state  campaign,  and  as  such  is  expected  to  prac- 
tise all  the  arts  known  to  politicians  to  bring  about  the  success 
of  the  party. 

The  adoption  of  the  Australian  ballot  system  has  involved  a 
legal  recognition  of  the  political  party  as  sponsor  for  nominations 
to  appear  on  the  ballot  under  the  party  emblem  or  with  the  party 
name.  The  convention  was  declared  the  official  representative 
of  the  party  in  the  first  instance,  but  it  was  found  necessary  to 
make  further  provision  for  vacancies  caused  by  the  death  or  dis- 
ability of  candidates  for  state  office.  The  laws  of  most  states 
accordingly  authorize  the  state  central  committee  of  the  party 
to  fill  vacancies  occurring  on  the  ticket.  .  . 


192  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

In  the  conduct  of  a  campaign  the  state  committee  cooperates 
with  the  national  committee,  and  to  some  extent  with  the  con- 
gressional committee.  It  must  also  be  constantly  in  touch  with 
the  local  organizations  of  the  state.  On  the  nature  of  the  rela- 
tion between  the  state  and  the  local  authorities,  the  printed  rules 
of  the  state  organizations  present  many  interesting  facts.  In 
some  instances  the  authority  of  the  central  committee  over  the 
local  committees  is  very  great.  .  . 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  said  that  the  plans  of  organization 
here  outlined  are  by  no  means  rigid  and  inflexible  in  their  nature. 
They  are  convenient  methods  of  directing  campaign  work,  but 
they  may  be  altered  or  radically  changed  by  the  action  of  the 
state  convention.  Thus  in  Illinois,  in  1900,  when  the  nominee 
of  the  Republican  party  for  governor  failed  to  secure  a  majority 
of  the  state  central  committee,  a  resolution  was  introduced  in 
the  convention  increasing  the  number  of  the  committee  by  the 
addition  of  eight  members  at  large.  This  motion  was  declared 
carried  by  the  chairman  of  the  convention,  who  proceeded  to 
name  eight  members  in  the  interest  of  the  gubernatorial  candi- 
date. In  any  party  emergency,  or  in  the  course  of  a  fierce  fac- 
tional fight,  the  rules  governing  the  organization  of  the  central 
committee  are  likely  to  be  over-ridden  by  the  stronger  or  more 
cunning.  To  infer,  however,  from  such  instances  of  interven- 
tion on  the  part  of  state  conventions,  that  the  organization  of  a 
state  central  committee  is  a  matter  of  slight  importance,  and 
that  it  makes  little  difference  in  whose  hands  the  control  rests, 
would  be  quite  erroneous.  To  the  ambitious  aspirant  for  party 
authority  the  state  central  committee  is  a  point  of  great  strategic 
importance,  and  many  a  bitter  fight  has  been  waged  for  its  con- 
trol. The  possession  of  the  central  committee  is,  if  not  conclu- 
sive, at  least  presumptive  evidence  of  party  authority  and  con- 
trol —  one  of  the  external  marks  of  sovereignty. 


Party  Organization  193 

8.     THE   PARTY   MACHINE   IN    PENNSYLVANIA1 

Probably  the  most  perfect  example  of  a  state  machine 
which  has  been  developed  in  the  United  States  is  the  Republican 
organization  in  Pennsylvania,  which  is  thus  described  by  one  of 
its  critics. 

Twenty  parts  of  the  potent,  puzzling  and  destructive  Quay 
machine,  constituted  of  Federal  and  State  officeholders,  are  as 
follows :  — 

Part  A  —  A  Republican  State  Committee  which  in  every 
part  is  subjugated  to  serve  the  personal  interests  of  Senator 
Quay  first  and  the  party  next,  without  respect  to  the  will  of 
the  people. 

Part  B  —  Great  Prestige  and  Patronage,  controlled  by  Quay 
as  a  United  States  Senator,  with  two  votes,  his  own  and  the 
other. 

Part  C  —  Thirty  Congressmen,  with  their  secretaries,  sixty 
persons,  whose  salaries  aggregate  $180,000  annually,  and  who 
are  responsible  to  the  machine  for  their  respective  districts. 

Part  D  —  The  419  officers  and  employees  of  the  State  gov- 
ernment, who  receive  in  salaries  $1,034,500  annually,  and  who 
are  selected  only  because  they  are  supposed  to  be  able  to  deliver 
the  votes  of  their  districts  to  any  one  the  Quay  machine  dictates. 
These  men  are  all  assessed  by  the  bosses  and  some  of  the  docu- 
ments in  our  possession  will  be  curious  reading  some  time. 

Tart  E  —  The  State  Senate,  with  every  officer,  from  presi- 
dent pro  tern,  down  to  page  boys,  selected  to  do  the  machine's 
bidding.  The  expenses  of  the  Senate  last  year  were  $169,604. 

Part  F  —  The  State  house  of  representatives,  with  members, 
officers  and  employees,  257  in  number,  who  drew  $468,302 
last  year.  All  committees  are  selected  by  the  machine,  and  are 

1  Wanamaker,  John,  Speeches  of  Hon.  John  Wanamaker  on  Quayism  and 
Boss  Domination  in  Pennsylvania  Politics.  Published  by  the  Business  Men's 
Republican  League  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia.  Undated 
(1898?);  pp.  231-235. 


194  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

chairmaned  by  men  who  know  no  will  but  that  of  Senator  Quay. 
Thus  his  machine  absolutely  controls  all  revenues  and  tax 
legislation. 

Part  G  —  Eight  thousand  one  hundred  and  twenty-two  post 
offices,  with  salaries  amounting  to  $3,705,446.  Most  postmas- 
ters are  made  the  personal  agents  of  the  machine  in  their  re- 
spective towns. 

Part  H  —  Four  thousand  one  hundred  and  forty-nine  officers, 
a  majority  of  whom  are  controlled  by  Senator  Quay's  machine, 
whose  salaries  amount  to  $5,000,000. 

Part  I  —  The  Philadelphia  Mint,  with  438  employees,  who 
receive  in  yearly  salaries  $326,565. 

Part  J  —  The  offices  of  collector  of  port,  with  400  employees, 
who  receive  in  salaries  $454,000. 

Part  K  —  The  internal  revenue  offices,  with  281  employees, 
who  receive  in  salaries  $356,400. 

Part  L  —  The  United  States  Circuit  and  District  Courts, 
with  forty-one  employees,  who  receive  in  salaries  $95,000. 

Part  M  —  League  Island  Navy  Yard  and  State  arsenals, 
with  585  employees,  who  receive  in  salaries  $725,000,  making 
a  total  of  14,705  officers  and  employees  who  receive  from  the 
state  and  national  governments  $7,608,911  annually. 

This  great  army  of  officeholders  are  thoroughly  organized, 
and  are  at  work  every  day  in  the  year  for  the  preservation  of 
the  Quay  machine.  To  give  you  a  clearer  conception  of  what 
the  machine  is,  I  have  taken,  for  example,  a  single  county  — 
that  of  Dauphin  —  which  is  eleventh  in  population  and  thir- 
teenth in  valuation,  of  the  sixty-seven  counties  of  this  state.  In 
this  Quay  stronghold  there  are  seventy-three  salaried  county 
offices,  controlled  by  the  machine,  with  annual  salaries  amount- 
ing to  $70,500 ;  also  seven  Presidential  post  offices,  paying  sal- 
aries amounting  to  $12,000,  and  fifty-one  fourth-class  offices, 
paying  $8,924,  making  a  total  of  131  machine  agents,  who  are 
paid  $91,424  by  the  state  and  national  governments,  at  work  in 
one  county. 


Party  Organization  195 

Part  N  —  The  thousand  of  trustees,  other  officials  and  em- 
ployees of  hospitals,  state  and  private ;  state  prisons,  reforma- 
tories, state  asylums,  charitable  homes,  state  colleges,  normal 
schools,  soldiers'  orphan  schools,  scientific  institutes  and  mu- 
seums, who  are  expected  to  support  the  machine  or  the  appro- 
priations of  their  institutions  will  be  endangered. 

Part  O  —  The  combined  capital  of  the  brewers  of  the  state, 
their  thousands  of  employees  and  dependent  patrons  whom  they 
control.  It  is  alleged  to  have  been  the  money  of  the  brewers 
that  paid  the  large  sums  during  Superintendent  of  Mint  Boyer's 
administration  as  state  treasurer,  necessary  to  make  good  short- 
ages, which  saved  the  machine,  when  his  cashier,  Mr.  Livesey, 
became  a  fugitive  from  justice. 

Part  P  —  Besides  the  amounts  paid  for  salaries  of  state 
officers  which  have  already  been  accounted  for,  the  appropriation 
committees,  who  are  of  Quay's  personal  selection,  disburse  $10,- 
000,000  annually  to  schools,  hospitals,  penal  institutions,  etc. 
The  bold  manipulation  of  these  funds  for  the  benefit  of  the  ma- 
chine has  educated  people  to  regard  moneys  received  for  these 
purposes  as  personal  contributions  from  Senator  Quay,  in  return 
for  which  they  must  render  help  to  his  machine. 

Part  Q  —  The  State  Liquor  League,  whose  members  are 
in  every  city,  town,  hamlet  and  cross-roads  throughout  the  state, 
and  who  maintain  a  permanent  state  organization,  having  head- 
quarters and  representatives  at  Harrisburg  during  the  sessions 
of  the  legislature,  are  always  for  Senator  Quay's  machine,  and 
form  an  important  part  of  the  machine's  operations. 

Part  R  —  A  large  number  of  the  common  pleas  judges 
throughout  the  state,  who  use  their  license-granting  power  for 
the  benefit  of  the  machine,  by  rewarding  those  faithful  to  the 
cause  of  Quay,  and  punishing  those  opposed  to  the  machine. 

Part  S  —  The  millions  of  withheld  school  and  personal  tax 
moneys  that  are  used  to  further  the  interests  of  the  machine. 
At  3  per  cent,  interest  —  the  rate  that  Smedley  Darlington  tes- 
tified, last  week,  under  oath,  his  trust  company  paid  —  the  ma- 


196  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

chine  has  taken  $2,500,000  of  your  money  since  Senator  Quay 
began  his  reign. 

Part  T  —  The  hundreds  of  subservient  newspapers  which 
are  recipients  of  machine  favors,  with  their  army  of  news- 
gatherers  and  correspondents,  who  are  forced  to  chloroform 
public  sentiment  and  hide  the  iniquities  of  the  machine.  .  . 

The  principal  allies  and  partners  of  the  machine  are  the  cor- 
porations. The  15,000  national  and  state  officeholders  and 
the  thousands  of  other  officials  connected  with  state  institutions 
form  a  small  part  of  the  whole  number  of  obedient  machine  men 
who  are  constantly  at  the  command  of  Senator  Quay,  the  ad- 
mitted boss  of  the  machine.  The  corporation  employees  of  the 
state  who  are  controlled  for  Quay's  use  increase  the  number  to 
the  proportions  of  a  vast  army. 

The  steam  railroads  of  the  state  employ  85,117  men  and  pay 
them  annually  in  wages  $49,400,000.  Of  this  number  the  Penn- 
sylvania and  Reading  Railroads  furnish  37,911  and  16,083  men 
respectively.  The  Vanderbilt  system  furnishes  12,432  men,  the 
Baltimore  &  Ohio  3,615,  the  New  Jersey  Central  2,864,  the  Lehigh 
Valley  12,062,  and  the  D.  L.  &  W.  2,150.  The  great  street 
railways  of  the  state,  who  have  received  valuable  legislative 
concessions  for  nothing,  give  the  machine  a  loyal  support  with 
12,079  employees,  who  are  paid  in  salaries  $6,920,692  every  year. 

That  monopoly  of  monopolies,  the  Standard  Oil  Company, 
pays  annually  $2,500,000  to  its  3,000  employees,  who  are  taught 
fidelity  to  Senator  Quay's  machine.  The  Bethlehem  Iron 
Works,  whose  armor  plates  are  sold  to  the  government  for  nearly 
double  the  contract  price  offered  to  foreign  countries,  influence 
their  employees  to  such  an  extent  that  in  the  city  of  Bethlehem 
it  has  been  found  difficult  to  get  men  to  stand  as  anti-Quay 
delegates. 

The  thousands  of  workingrnen  of  the  Carnegie  Iron  Works, 
it  is  said,  are  marched  to  the  polls  under  the  supervision  of  super- 
intendents and  foremen,  and  voted  for  Quay  candidates  under 
penalty  of  losing  their  jobs. 


Party  Organization  197 

The  great  express  companies  who  furnish  franks  to  machine 
followers,  one  of  which  is  bossed  by  Senator  Platt,  with  their 
thousands  of  men,  can  be  counted  on  for  great  service  to  the 
machine. 

The  telegraph  companies,  whose  state  officials  can,  it  is  said, 
be  found  at  the  inner  Quay  councils,  with  the  thousands  of  em- 
ployees distributed  at  every  important  point  throughout  the 
state,  and  before  whom  a  large  share  of  all  important  news  must 
pass,  is  one  of  the  most  dangerous  parts  of  the  Quay  machine. 

The  interests  of  the  corporations  and  those  of  the  masses 
have  been  diverging  for  many  years,  until  now  what  is  for  the 
people's  good  will  not  suit  the  corporations,  and  what  will  seem- 
ingly satisfy  the  corporations  is  no  longer  safe  to  the  people. 
The  unlimited  use  of  wealth  and  capital  where  there  is  free  and 
full  competition  is  not  to  be  feared,  but  capital  licensed  by  un- 
just and  discriminating  laws  is  the  threatening  evil  of  the  day. 

Capital  with  its  manifold  possibilities  for  good  in  itself  be- 
comes an  agency  of  wrong  and  calamity  when  harnessed  with 
favored  legislation. 

9.  RULES  OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  PARTY  IN  PENNSYLVANIA  1 

In  the  states  the  action  of  parties  has  been  regulated  to  vary- 
ing degrees  by  state  laws,  but  parties  supplement  these  by  rules 
laid  down  for  their  own  management. 

At  a  State  Convention  held  in  Harrisburg,  August  24,  1899 
the  following  rules  were  adopted  for  the  guidance  of  the  Republi- 
can party  in  Pennsylvania : 

FIRST.  —  That  the  Chairman  of  the  Republican  State  Com- 
mittee shall  be  elected  by  the  candidates  nominated  at  the  State 
Convention  and  the  permanent  chairman  thereof  as  soon  as 
practicable  after  the  adjournment  of  the  State  Convention,  and 

1  Adopted  in  state  convention  at  Harrisburg,  August  24,  1899.  In  force 
1911-1912.  (C.  LI.  J.) 


198  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

shall  hold  his  office  until  his  successor  is  elected.  If  there  should 
be  a  vacancy  caused  by  death,  resignation  or  otherwise,  after 
the  meeting  of  the  Republican  State  Convention  and  before  the 
next  ensuing  general  election,  the  candidates  nominated  at  the 
said  convention  and  the  permanent  chairman  aforesaid  shall 
fill  such  vacancy,  but  should  a  vacancy  occur  after  the  next  en- 
suing general  election,  the  Republican  State  Committee  shall  be 
called  together  by  the  secretaries  of  said  committee  and  the  ma- 
jority of  the  members  of  the  said  committee  present  shall  select 
a  chairman,  who  shall  serve  until  his  successor  is  elected. 

SECOND.  —  That  the  State  Committee  shall  be  elected  by 
the  delegates  of  the  State  Convention  in  each  Senatorial  district 
and  shall  hold  their  offices  until  their  successors  are  elected,  each 
of  said  districts  being  entitled  to  not  less  than  two  members : 
Provided,  however,  that  where  a  Senatorial  district  consists  of 
more  than  one  county,  each  county  shall  be  entitled  to  one  mem- 
ber :  And  provided  further,  that  the  Chairman  of  the  State  Com- 
mittee shall  have  power  to  appoint  twelve  members  of  the  State 
Committee-at-large,  who  shall  have  the  same  voice  in  the  man- 
agement of  the  affairs  of  the  party  as  the  members  selected  from 
the  Senatorial  districts. 

THIRD.  —  That  the  time  for  holding  the  State  Convention 
of  the  Republican  party  shall  be  fixed  by  the  State  Committee 
and  at  least  sixty  days'  notice  thereof  given  of  the  date  for  hold- 
ing the  said  convention. 

FOURTH.  —  That  the  delegates  to  the  State  Convention 
shall  be  chosen  in  the  manner  in  which  candidates  for  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  are  nominated,  or  in  accordance  with  the  party 
rules  in  force  in  the  respective  counties  of  this  Commonwealth. 

FIFTH.  —  That  representation  in  State  Conventions  shall 
be  based  on  the  vote  polled  at  the  Presidential  election  preceding, 
one  delegate  being  allotted  to  each  Legislative  district  for  every 
two  thousand  Republican  votes  and  an  additional  delegate  for  a 
fraction  exceeding  one  thousand  votes,  each  district  to  have  at 
least  one  delegate. 


Party  Organization  199 

SIXTH. — That  the  State  Committee  shall  hereafter  have 
power  to  place  in  nomination  candidates  to  fill  any  vacancies 
upon  the  State  ticket  caused  by  death,  resignation  or  otherwise, 
and  the  said  committee  shall  also  have  power  to  place  in  nomina- 
tion a  candidate  to  fill  vacancy  caused  by  death  or  resignation 
of  any  officer  to  be  voted  for  by  the  electors  of  the  State,  where 
such  vacancy  shall  occur  after  the  regular  convention  of  the  party 
has  been  held,  and  the  vacancy  is  to  be  filled  at  the  next  ensu- 
ing general  election. 

SEVENTH.  —  In  all  Congressional,  Senatorial  or  Judicial 
districts,  where  the  delegates  or  conferees  in  said  Congressional, 
Senatorial  or  Judicial  districts  are  unable  to  agree  and  make  a 
nomination  55  days  prior  to  the  general  election,  the  Chairman 
of  the  Republican  State  Committee  shall  appoint  one  representa- 
tive Republican  from  each  county  of  the  district,  who  shall  be- 
come a  part  of  the  original  body  and  shall  have  the  same  voice  in 
the  deliberations  as  the  original  members.  In  event  the  con- 
vention or  conference  is  then  unable  to  agree  within  five  days 
after  the  representative  Republicans  from  each  county  in  the 
district  are  appointed,  as  aforesaid,  the  Chairman  of  the  Repub- 
lican State  Committee  shall  select  a  representative  Republican 
in  the  district  who  shall  act  as  umpire  or  referee  in  making 
a  nomination. 


10.    THE  POWERS   OF  A  NATIONAL  COMMITTEE    , 

The  National  Committee  is  the  center  of  the  party  organiza- 
tion. Its  functions  are  closely  connected  with  the  election  of 
President,  but  it  is  also  charged  with  general  supervision  of  the 
party  interests  throughout  the  whole  country.  Its  power  has 
rapidly  increased  during  the  last  twenty  years. 

1  Ogden,  Rollo,  "  New  Powers  of  the  National  Committee."  Atlantic 
Monthly,  Vol.  89,  1902 ;  p.  76.  For  a  description  of  the  powers  of  the  con- 
gressional committee  see  Macy,  J.,  Party  Organization  and  Machinery.  Cen- 
tury Co.,  New  York,  1904;  pp.  87-92. 


2OO  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

One  thing  we  may  always  be  sure  of,  —  a  man  or  a  committee 
will  accept  and  wield  every  particle  of  power  that  offers  itself. 
"  Power  cleaves  to  him  who  power  exerts."  It  ought  not  to 
surprise  us,  then,  if  we  find,  on  examination,  that  what  was  at 
first  only  a  simple  and  temporary  agency  of  party  activity  has 
silently  taken  to  itself  new  powers,  and  assumed  to  exert  them 
year  in  and  out,  instead  of  merely  through  a  presidential  cam- 
paign. That,  in  a  word,  is  what  I  think  can  be  shown  to  be  true 
of  the  role  in  our  political  life  which  the  National  Committee 
has  come  to  play.  In  its  present  prestige  and  animus,  it  would 
dictate  to  the  very  party  which  created  it.  It  would  control 
conventions.  It  would  prescribe  candidacies.  It  would  dis- 
tribute party  rewards.  It  would  both  consolidate  and  perpetu- 
ate the  power  which  has  fallen  to  it.  In  short  the  clay  of  the 
National  Committee  is  ready  to  say  to  the  party  potter  that 
moulded  it,  "What  doest  thou?" 

Like  nearly  every  rise  to  undesignated  power,  that  of  the  Na- 
tional Committee  has  been  slow  and  gradual.  Nemo  repente. 
Its  early  function  —  the  only  one  described  in  histories  of  parties 
and  manuals  of  government  —  was  very  modest.  It  would  ap- 
pear that  even  Mr.  Bryce  knew  of  it  as  only  a  passing  instru- 
ment of  the  party  in  a  presidential  campaign.  Merely  such, 
in  fact,  it  long  was.  Most  people  did  not  even  know  who  was 
the  Chairman  of  the  National  Committee  at  any  given  time.  .  . 

The  change  began  to  be  sharply  marked  in  1884.  It  was  owing 
in  part  to  the  personality  of  the  Chairman,  Senator  Gorman, 
who  then  came  forward,  without  clamor  or  controversy,  to  ex- 
tend in  a  very  notable  way  the  powers  and  emoluments  of  the 
office.  But  his  opportunity  lay  largely  in  the  fact  that  a  great 
party  revolution  was  effected  under  his  management.  Had 
Mr.  Elaine's  campaign  been  successful,  there  is  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  his  Chairman,  Mr.  B.  F.  Jones,  would  have  ranked  as 
anything  more  than  simply  another  of  the  respectable  but  mean- 
ingless figureheads  of  the  National  Committee.  But  with  Gor- 
man the  case  was  different.  Under  his  guidance,  a  party  came 


Party  Organization  201 

to  power  which  had  been  out  of  office  for  a  quarter  of  a  century. 
It  meant  something  like  a  convulsion.  The  Democratic  party 
was  stirred  to  its  depths,  —  some  would  say  to  its  dregs.  Masses 
of  men  were  swayed  by  new  hopes  of  office ;  the  whole  federal 
administration  was  to  be  reorganized ;  the  claims  of  individuals 
necessarily  unknown  to  the  President  elect  had  to  be  sifted,  and 
who  so  natural  a  presiding  genius  in  all  this  work  as  the  man  who 
had  had  his  hand  upon  each  of  the  levers  of  the  Democratic 
machine  for  five  exciting  months,  and  who  enjoyed  in  a  peculiar 
way  the  prestige  of  an  unprecedented  victory  on  a  close-fought 
field?  At  all  events,  thousands  of  Democrats  turned  to  Mr. 
Gorman  at  that  juncture,  and  turned  to  him,  not  as  Senator 
from  Maryland,  but  as  Chairman  of  the  National  Committee. 
How  he  magnified  the  latter  office  was  not  fully  known  at  the 
time,  except  to  those  who  had  occasion  to  observe  matters  from 
the  inside.  Mr.  Gorman  was  never  a  man  to  go  hunting  with  a 
brass  band.  It  was  quietly,  but  none  the  less  effectively,  that 
he  made  his  power  as  party  Chairman  tell  in  the  distribution  of 
party  patronage,  in  the  shaping  of  legislation,  and  as  well  in 
determining  party  policy.  Not  merely  at  the  beginning  of  Presi- 
dent Cleveland's  first  term,  but  all  through  it,  those  who  were 
intimately  acquainted  with  affairs  at  Washington  knew  how 
large  a  significance  and  how  great  a  weight  came  to  be  associated 
with  the  influence  of  Senator  Gorman.  His  -vise  was  most 
eagerly  in  demand  by  office-seekers.  His  voice  was  most  lis- 
tened to  in  caucus.  And  the  new  deference  which  he  won  came 
to  him,  not  as  Mr.  Gorman,  not  as  Senator  Gorman,  but  as  Chair- 
man Gorman.  His  tenure  of  the  position  marked  the  first  great 
step  in  the  enlargement  of  its  powers  and  privileges. 

He  was  closely  followed  by  a  man  in  the  opposite  party,  who 
carried  the  assumptions  of  the  National  Chairman  to  a  still  higher 
pitch.  Mr.  Quay  was  less  secret  in  his  methods  than  Mr.  Gor- 
man. Immediately  after  the  Presidential  election  of  1888,  he 
publicly  announced  that  his  party  office  he  was  bound  to  make  a 
continuous  one ;  that  he  was  going  to  look  carefully  to  the  work 


2O2  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

of  garnering  all  the  fruits  of  victory ;  and  that  the  National  Com- 
mittee (meaning  himself)  was  not  to  sink  back  into  inactivity, 
but  was  to  keep  a  firm  hand  upon  the  party  organization  and 
upon  party  strategy.  How  persistently  Senator  Quay  adhered  to 
this  plan  is  matter  of  too  recent  history  to  require  detailing 
here.  Enough  to  say  that  he  sensibly  enlarged  the  preroga- 
tives and  stiffened  the  self-assertion  of  the  office  he  held.  .  . 

It  (was)  in  the  person  of  Senator  Hanna  that  this  growth 
reached  its  culmination.  .  . 

Never,  it  is  safe  to  say,  did  a  party  Chairman  previously  have 
so  much  to  do  with  the  apportionment  of  party  patronage.  The 
President  gave  him  substantially  a  free  hand  in  the  South.  Then 
there  came  along  the  Spanish  War,  yielding  our  Caesar  of  a 
Chairman  further  meat  on  which  to  grow  great.  Thousands  of 
new  appointments  had  to  be  made.  For  each  applicant  the 
indorsement  of  Chairman  Hanna  was  eagerly  sought.  His 
power  grew  by  power.  After  four  years  of  its  gradual  increase 
came  another  successful  campaign  for  the  presidency,  under  his 
management.  Reckoning  all  this  in,  we  begin  to  see  how  high 
were  the  pretensions,  how  proud  the  importance  and  influence, 
which  this  most  able  and  assertive  of  all  the  Chairmen  of 
National  Committees  might  have  been  excused  for  thinking 
lawfully  his  own.  .  . 

It  is  difficult  to  set  off,  each  by  itself,  the  elements  of  the  polit- 
ical power  of  the  party  National  Committee,  vested  largely  in 
its  Chairman,  for  the  reason  that  they  are  all  inextricably  in- 
terdependent. The  Chairman  has  the  spending  of  vast  sums  of 
money :  this  gives  him  political  power.  But  he  has  the  money 
to  spend  only  because  he  is  first  in  a  position  of  political  power. 
So  of  his  rights  of  patronage ;  of  control  of  party  conventions, 
big  and  little ;  of  his  dictation  in  both  party  maneuvering  and 
public  legislation :  all  these  things  dovetail  into  one  and  another, 
and  appear  now  as  cause,  now  as  consequence.  Still,  it  is  pos- 
sible to  see  just  how  each  of  the  instruments  in  the  hand  of  the 
National  Chairman  may  be  made  subservient  to  the  upbuilding 


Party  Organization  203 

of  his  own  prestige  and  power.  He  has,  for  example,  millions  of 
dollars  to  disburse.  There  is  good  authority  for  the  assertion 
that  the  Republican  campaign  fund  of  1896  was  upwards  of  seven 
million  dollars.  Mr.  Hanna  argued  in  1900  that  it  ought  to  be  // 
twice  as  great,  —  presumably  because  the  country  was  twice  as  < 
prosperous.  At  all  events,  he  was  not  cramped  for  funds  in 
either  year.  Now  the  outlay  of  such  huge  sums  necessarily  / 
means  an  increment  of  power  for  the  man  who  controls  it.  Such 
will  be  the  case  even  if  he  is  the  most  unselfish  and  incorruptible 
of  mortals.  Money  is  power  in  politics  as  everywhere  else.  A  \ 
Chairman  who  may  determine  how  much  is  to  be  allotted  to  this 
state,  that  congressional  district,  this  city  and  the  other  county, 
becomes  inevitably  the  master  of  many  political  legions.  There 
is  no  need  of  a  hard-and-fast  understanding  between  giver 
and  recipient,  —  least  of  all,  of  any  corrupt  bargain.  Common 
gratitude  and  the  expectation  of  similar  favors  to  come  are 
enough  to  bind  fast  the  nominee  for  Congress,  the  candidate  for 
a  Senatorship,  or  the  member  of  the  National  Committee  for 
any  given  state,  a  large  part  of  whose  campaign  expenses  has 
been  kindly  paid  for  him  from  headquarters.  It  is  hard  really  to 
think  ill  of  a  man  who  has  sent  you  a  large  check.  To  oppose 
your  humble  opinion  to  his  necessarily  large  and  enlightened  view 
of  party  policy  and  public  advantage  is  sheer  presumption.  To 
vote  for  him,  or  with  him,  or  as  he  bids  you,  is  thereafter  obvi- 
ously the  line  of  least  resistance.  Thus  it  is  that  the  bread  which 
the  National  Chairman  casts  upon  the  waters  returns  to  him 
after  not  so  many  days. 

The  pecuniary  aspect  of  the  Chairman's  power  has  another 
feature.    He  collects  as  well  as  pays  out ;  and  with  many  of  the 
collections  goes  an  express  or  tacit  party  obligation  which  he 
alone  is  fully  cognizant  of,  and  which  it  is  his  peculiar  duty  to 
see  carried  out.     Rich  men  do  not  always  contribute  to  party  in* 
obedience  to  the  Scriptural  injunction  to  give,  asking  not  again.  \\ 
They  make  conditions,  either  openly  or  by  hint  or  gesture.  .  .  . 

It  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  this.    The  present  point  simply 


204  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

is  that  all  this  side  of  the  business  is  so  much  more  water  for  the 
mill  of  the  party  Chairman.  He  sits  at  the  receipt  of  customs. 
To  him  are  confided  all  the  wishes  and  the  schemings,  and  he 
makes  all  the  promises,  that  go  with  the  money  paid  him.  Hence 
it  becomes  his  concern  to  see  that  there  is  honor  among  politi- 
cians. And  no  thing  is  more  inevitable  than  the  resultant  height- 
ening of  his  political  power,  repository  as  he  is  of  secret  liens 
upon  party  action,  and  the  one  mysterious  agent  by  means  of 
whom  they  are  made  good. 

A  word  or  two  will  suffice  to  bring  out  the  almost  complete 
mastery  of  party  machinery  which  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of 
the  National  Committee  since  it  became  a  continuous  and  con- 
tinuously active  body,  and  took  to  itself  such  new  and  great 
powers.  When  the  Chairman  now  calls  to  order  a  national  Con- 
vention, he  is  really  facing  a  large  number,  sometimes  a  majority, 
of  delegates  who  are  there  because  he  willed  them  to  be  there. 
To  "call"  the  Convention  has,  in  fact,  come  to  be  pretty  nearly 
the  same  thing  as  deciding  who  shall  be  among  the  "called." 
The  product  which  the  party  machine  turns  out  depends  too 
much  upon  the  man  who  gives  the  signal  to  set  it  in  motion,  and 
who  himself  gets  up  steam  and  oils  the  bearings,  not  to  have  a 
strangely  suspicious  way  of  proving  to  be  of  just  the  kind  he 
wanted.  .  . 

The  part  that  control  of  the  patronage  always  plays  in  the 
building  up  of  the  party  Chairman's  overweening  political  power 
has  been  sufficiently  intimated.  .  . 

What  has  not  been  so  patent,  however,  is  the  fact  that  even  a 
defeated  Chairman  has  a  large  measure  of  similar  power.  .  . 

(He)  too,  has  a  vast  and  intricate  party  machine,  upon  the 
very  pulse  of  which  he  keeps  his  hands.  He  is  in  touch  with  his 
state  committeemen.  He  has  his  congressional  legions  at  com- 
mand, to  make  trouble  for  the  party  in  power  unless  they  and 
he  are  duly  placated  with  consideration  and  offices.  .  . 

They  were  given  him  in  recognition  of  his  power,  and  at  the 
same  time,  of  course,  increased  that  power.  It  is  of  the  kind 


Party  Organization  205 

which  cannot  be  stripped  from  a  party  Chairman  even  in  defeat, 
and  which,  in  continued  success,  continually  increases,  until  its 
possessor  comes  naturally  to  be  regarded  as  almost  a  coordi- 
nate branch  of  the  general  government.  .  . 

The  present  writer  has  no  thought  of  falling  into  what  George 
Eliot  called  the  one  form  of  gratuitous  mistake,  —  prophecy. 
All  that  he  wishes  to  do  is  to  give  a  hint  of  the  way  in  which  a 
new  power  has  grown  to  portentous  size  in  our  politics ;  to  show 
how  the  Chairman  of  the  National  Committee  has,  little  by  little, 
taken  to  himself  functions  and  privileges  undreamed  of  a  gen- 
eration ago.  .  . 

II.    THE   PRESIDENT   AS   A  PARTY   LEADER1 

In  spite  of  the  intent  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  the 
President  has  become  a  great  party  chief.  He  can  make  him- 
self the  general  of  all  the  party  forces  throughout  the  land  —  in- 
deed a  President  who  failed  to  do  so,  would  now  be  a  decided 
exception.  His  is  the  only  voice  which  can  speak  the  policy  of 
the  party  to  the  nation  as  a  whole. 

The  makers  of  the  Constitution  seem  to  have  thought  of  the 
President  as  what  the  stricter  Whig  theorists  wished  the  king 
to  be :  only  the  legal  executive,  the  presiding  and  guiding  author- 
ity in  the  application  of  law  and  the  execution  of  policy.  His 
veto  upon  legislation  was  only  his  "check"  on  Congress,  — was 
a  power  of  restraint,  not  of  guidance.  He  was  empowered  to 
prevent  bad  laws,  but  he  was  not  to  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
make  good  ones.  As  a  matter  of  fact  he  has  become  very  much 
more.  He  has  become  the  leader  of  his  party  and  the  guide  of 
the  nation  in  political  purposes,  and  therefore  in  legal  action. 
The  constitutional  structure  of  the  government  has  hampered 
and  limited  his  action  in  these  significant  roles,  but  it  has  not 
prevented  it.  .  . 

1  Wilson,  W.,  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States.  Columbia 
University  Press,  New  York,  1908;  Chap.  Ill  (excerpts). 


206  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

The  role  of  party  leader  is  forced  upon  the  President  by  the 
method  of  his  selection.  The  theory  of  the  makers  of  the  Con- 
stitution may  have  been  that  the  presidential  electors  would  exer- 
cise a  real  choice,  but  it  is  hard  to  understand  how,  as  experi- 
enced politicians,  they  can  have  expected  anything  of  the  kind. 
They  did  not  provide  that  the  electors  should  meet  as  one  body 
for  consultation  and  make  deliberate  choice  of  a  President  and 
Vice-President,  but  that  they  should  meet  "in  their  respective 
states"  and  cast  their  ballots  in  separate  groups,  without  the 
possibility  of  consulting  and  without  the  least  likelihood  of  agree- 
ing, unless  some  such  means  as  have  actually  been  used  were  em- 
ployed to  suggest  and  determine  their  choice  beforehand.  It 
was  the  practice  at  first  to  make  party  nominations  for  the  presi- 
dency by  congressional  caucus.  Since  the  Democratic  upheaval 
of  General  Jackson's  time  nominating  conventions  have  taken 
the  place  of  congressional  caucuses ;  and  the  choice  of  Presidents 
by  party  conventions  has  had  some  very  interesting  results. 

We  are  apt  to  think  of  the  choice  of  nominating  conventions 
as  somewhat  haphazard.  We  know,  or  think  that  we  know, 
how  their  action  is  sometimes  determined,  and  the  knowledge 
makes  us  very  uneasy.  We  know  that  there  is  no  debate  in 
nominating  conventions,  no  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  re- 
spective candidates,  at  which  the  country  can  sit  as  audience 
and  assess  the  wisdom  of  the  final  choice.  If  there  is  any  talking 
to  be  done,  aside  from  the  formal  addresses  of  the  temporary  and 
permanent  chairman  and  of  those  who  present  the  platform  and 
the  names  of  the  several  aspirants  for  nomination,  the  assembly 
adjourns.  The  talking  that  is  to  decide  the  result  must  be  done 
in  private  committee  rooms  and  behind  the  closed  doors  of  the 
headquarters  of  the  several  state  delegations  to  the  conven- 
tion. .  . 

In  reality  there  is  much  more  method,  much  more  definite  pur- 
pose, much  more  deliberate  choice  in  the  extraordinary  process 
than  there  seems  to  be.  The  leading  spirits  of  the  national  com- 
mittee of  each  party  could  give  an  account  of  the  matter  which 


Party  Organization  207 

would  put  a  very  different  face  on  it  and  make  the  methods  of 
nominating  conventions  seem,  for  all  the  undoubted  elements  of 
chance  there  are  in  them,  on  the  whole  very  manageable.  More- 
over, the  party  that  expects  to  win  may  be  counted  on  to  make  a 
much  more  conservative  and  thoughtful  selection  of  a  candidate 
than  the  party  that  merely  hopes  to  win.  The  haphazard  se- 
lections which  seem  to  discredit  the  system  are  generally  made 
by  conventions  of  the  party  unaccustomed  to  success.  Success 
brings  sober  calculation  and  a  sense  of  responsibility.  .  . 

If  the  matter  be  looked  at  a  little  more  closely,  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  office  of  President,  as  we  have  used  and  developed  it, 
really  does  not  demand  actual  experience  in  affairs  so  much  as 
particular  qualities  of  mind  and  character  which  we  are  at  least 
as  likely  to  find  outside  the  ranks  of  our  public  men  as  within 
them.  What  is  it  that  a  nominating  convention  wants  in  the 
man  it  is  to  present  to  the  country  for  its  suffrage  ?  A  man  who 
will  be  and  who  will  seem  to  the  country  in  some  sort  an  embodi- 
ment of  the  character  and  purpose  it  wishes  its  government  to 
have,  —  a  man  who  understands  his  own  day  and  the  needs  of 
the  country,  and  who  has  the  personality  and  the  initiative  to 
enforce  his  views  both  upon  the  people  and  upon  Congress.  It 
may  seem  an  odd  way  to  get  such  a  man.  It  is  even  possible 
that  nominating  conventions  and  those  who  guide  them  do  not 
realize  entirely  what  it  is  that  they  do.  But  in  simple  fact  the 
convention  picks  out  a  party  leader  from  the  body  of  the  nation. 
Not  that  it  expects  its  nominee  to  direct  the  interior  government 
of  the  party  and  to  supplant  its  already  accredited  and  experi- 
enced spokesmen  in  Congress  and  in  its  state  and  national  com- 
mittees ;  but  it  does  of  necessity  expect  him  to  represent  it  be- 
fore public  opinion  and  to  stand  before  the  country  as  its  repre- 
sentative man,  as  a  true  type  of  what  the  country  may  expect  of 
the  party  itself  in  purpose  and  principle.  It  cannot  but  be  led 
by  him  in  the  campaign  ;  if  he  be  elected,  it  cannot  but  acquiesce 
in  his  leadership  of  the  government  itself.  What  the  country 
will  demand  of  the  candidate  will  be,  not  that  he  be  an  astute 


208  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

politician,  skilled  and  practised  in  affairs,  but  that  he  be  a  man 
such  as  it  can  trust,  in  character,  in  intention,  in  knowledge  of 
its  needs,  in  perception  of  the  best  means  by  which  those  needs 
may  be  met,  in  capacity  to  prevail  by  reason  of  his  own  weight 
and  integrity.  Sometimes  the  country  believes  in  a  party,  but 
more  often  it  believes  in  a  man;  and  conventions  have  often 
shown  the  instinct  to  perceive  which  it  is  that  the  country  needs 
in  a  particular  presidential  year,  a  mere  representative  partisan, 
a  military  hero,  or  some  one  who  will  genuinely  speak  for  the 
country  itself,  whatever  be  his  training  and  antecedents.  It  is 
in  this  sense  that  the  President  has  the  role  of  party  leader  thrust 
upon  him  by  the  very  method  by  which  he  is  chosen. 

As  legal  executive,  his  constitutional  aspect,  the  President 
cannot  be  thought  of  alone.  He  cannot  execute  laws.  Their 
actual  daily  execution  must  be  taken  care  of  by  the  several  ex- 
ecutive departments  and  by  the  now  innumerable  body  of  federal 
officials  throughout  the  country.  In  respect  of  the  strictly  exec- 
utive duties  of  his  office  the  President  may  be  said  to  administer 
the  presidency  in  conjunction  with  the  members  of  his  cabinet, 
like  the  chairman  of  a  commission.  He  is  even  of  necessity 
much  less  active  in  the  actual  carrying  out  of  the  laws  than  are 
his  colleagues  and  advisers.  It  is  therefore  becoming  more  and 
more  true,  as  the  business  of  the  government  becomes  more  and 
more  complex  and  extended,  that  the  President  is  becoming 
more  and  more  a  political  and  less  and  less  an  executive  officer. 
His  executive  powers  are  in  commission,  while  his  political  pow- 
ers more  and  more  centre  and  accumulate  upon  him  and  are 
in  their  very  nature  personal  and  inalienable.  .  . 

It  is  through  no  fault  or  neglect  of  his  that  the  duties  appar- 
ently assigned  to  him  by  the  Constitution  have  come  to  be  his 
less  conspicuous,  less  important  duties,  and  that  duties  appar- 
ently not  assigned  to  him  at  all  chiefly  occupy  his  time  and 
energy.  The  one  set  of  duties  it  has  proved  practically  impos- 
sible for  him  to  perform ;  the  other  it  has  proved  impossible  for 
him  to  escape. 


Party  Organization  209 

He  cannot  escape  being  the  leader  of  his  party  except  by  in- 
capacity and  lack  of  personal  force,  because  he  is  at  once  the 
choice  of  the  party  and  of  the  nation.  He  is  the  party  nominee, 
and  the  only  party  nominee  for  whom  the  whole  nation  votes. 
Members  of  the  House  and  Senate  are  representatives  of  locali- 
ties, are  voted  for  only  by  sections  of  voters,  or  by  local  bodies 
of  electors  like  the  members  of  the  state  legislatures.  There  is 
no  national  party  choice  except  that  of  President.  No  one  else 
represents  the  people  as  a  whole,  exercising  a  national  choice; 
and  inasmuch  as  his  strictly  executive  duties  are  in  fact  subor- 
dinated, so  far  at  any  rate  as  all  detail  is  concerned,  the  Presi- 
dent represents  not  so  much  the  party's  governing  efficiency 
as  its  controlling  ideals  and  principles.  He  is  not  so  much  part 
of  its  organization  as  its  vital  link  of  connection  with  the  think- 
ing nation.  He  can  dominate  his  party  by  being  spokesman  for 
the  real  sentiment  and  purpose  of  the  country,  by  giving  direc- 
tion to  opinion,  by  giving  the  country  at  once  the  information 
and  the  statements  of  policy  which  will  enable  it  to  form  its 
judgments  alike  of  parties  and  of  men. 

For  he  is  also  the  political  leader  of  the  nation,  or  has  it  in  his 
choice  to  be.  The  nation  as  a  whole  has  chosen  him,  and  is  con- 
scious that  it  has  no  other  political  spokesman.  His  is  the  only 
national  voice  in  affairs.  Let  him  once  win  the  admiration  and 
confidence  of  the  country,  and  no  other  single  force  can  with- 
stand him,  no  combination  of  forces  will  easily  overpower  him. 
His  position  takes  the  imagination  of  the  country.  He  is  the 
representative  of  no  constituency,  but  of  the  whole  people. 
When  he  speaks  in  his  true  character,  he  speaks  for  no  special 
interest.  If  he  rightly  interpret  the  national  thought  and  boldly 
insist  upon  it,  he  is  irresistible;  and  the  country  never  feels  the 
zest  of  action  so  much  as  when  its  President  is  of  such  insight 
and  calibre.  Its  instinct  is  for  unified  action,  and  it  craves  a 
single  leader.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  it  will  often  prefer  to 
choose  a  man  rather  than  a  party.  A  President  whom  it  trusts 
can  not  only  lead  it,  but  form  it  to  his  own  views.  It  is  the  ex- 
p 


2io  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

traordinary  isolation  imposed  upon  the  President  by  our  system 
that  makes  the  character  and  opportunity  of  his  office  so  ex- 
traordinary. In  him  are  centered  both  opinion  and  party.  He 
may  stand,  if  he  will,  a  little  outside  party  and  insist  as  it  were 
upon  the  general  opinion.  It  is  with  the  instinctive  feeling  that 
it  is  upon  occasion  such  a  man  that  the  country  wants  that 
nominating  conventions  will  often  nominate  men  who  are  not 
their  acknowledged  leaders,  but  only  such  men  as  the  country 
would  like  to  see  lead  both  its  parties.  The  President  may  also, 
if  he  will,  stand  within  the  party  counsels  and  use  the  advantages 
of  his  power  and  personal  force  to  control  its  actual  programs. 
He  may  be  both  the  leader  of  his  party  and  the  leader  of  the  na- 
tion, or  he  may  be  one  or  the  other.  If  he  lead  the  nation,  his 
party  can  hardly  resist  him.  His  office  is  anything  he  has  the 
sagacity  and  force  to  make  it.  .  . 

The  political  powers  of  the  President  are  not  quite  so  obvious 
in  their  scope  and  character  when  we  consider  his  relations  with 
Congress  as  when  we  consider  his  relations  to  his  party  and  to 
the  nation.  They  need,  therefore,  a  somewhat  more  critical 
examination.  .  . 

Some  of  our  Presidents  have  felt  the  need,  which  unques- 
tionably exists  in  our  system,  for  some  spokesman  of  the  nation 
as  a  whole,  in  matters  of  legislation  no  less  than  in  other  matters, 
and  have  tried  to  supply  Congress  with  the  leadership  of  sug- 
gestion, backed  by  argument  and  by  iteration  and  by  every  legi- 
timate appeal  to  public  opinion.  Cabinet  officers  are  shut  out 
from  Congress ;  the  President  himself  has,  by  custom,  no  access 
to  its  floors ;  many  long-established  barriers  of  precedent,  though 
not  of  law,  hinder  him  from  exercising  any  direct  influence  upon 
its  deliberations ;  and  yet  he  is  undoubtedly  the  only  spokesman 
of  the  whole  people.  They  have  again  and  again,  as  often  as 
they  were  afforded  the  opportunity,  manifested  their  satisfaction 
when  he  has  boldly  accepted  the  role  of  leader,  to  which  the  pecu- 
liar origin  and  character  of  his  authority  entitle  him.  The  Con- 
stitution bids  him  speak,  and  times  of  stress  and  change  must 


Party  Organization  21 1 

more  and  more  thrust  upon  him  the  attitude  of  originator  of 
policies. 

His  is  the  vital  place  of  action  in  the  system,  whether  he  ac- 
cept it  as  such  or  not,  and  the  office  is  the  measure  of  the  man, 
—  of  his  wisdom  as  well  as  of  his  force. 


VIII.  THE  BALLOT 

I.    THE  AUSTRALIAN  BALLOT  1 

The  Australian  ballot  has  become  a  recognized  part  of  Ameri- 
can party  machinery,  but  its  use  in  England  and  in  America  is 
a  recent  development. 

WE  mistakenly  assume  that  the  ballot  was  always  a  concomi- 
tant of  the  suffrage,  but  we  should  not  overlook  the  facts  that 
the  provision  for  vote  by  ballot  was  stricken  out  of  Lord  Grey's 
Reform  Bill  in  1832,  and  that  for  the  ensuing  forty  years  the 
elections  in  England  were  conducted  under  the  old  viva  wee 
system,  as  they  had  been  for  generations  preceding.  The  agita- 
tion for  a  written  ballot  was  especially  active  in  the  late  '3o's 
of  the  last  century.  It  was  vigorously  promoted  by  the  his- 
torians Grote  and  Macaulay.  The  opposition  resorted  to  argu- 
ments that  we  can  only  half  comprehend.  There  seems  to  have 
been  abroad  in  the  land  a  vague  fear  lest  the  voter,  when  privi- 
ledged  to  exercise  his  franchise  in  secret,  would  wreak  some  awful 
vengeance  on  those  in  authority.  Nor  was  this  dread  confined 
to  old  England.  Sydney  Smith,  writing  in  1839,  quotes  our  own 
John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  as  remarking  in  characteristic  tone  : 
"I  scarcely  believe  we  have  such  a  fool  in  all  Virginia  as  to  men- 
tion even  the  vote  by  ballot,  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
the  adoption  of  the  ballot  would  make  any  nation  a  nation  of 
scoundrels,  if  it  did  not  find  them  so."  The  Southern  States  of 
the  Union  kept  the  viva  wee  vote  long  after  the  ballot  had  been 


,  W.  B.,  "Good  Ballot  Laws  and  Bad."    Outlook,  Dec.  9,  1905; 
pp.  864-867. 

212 


The  Ballot  213 

adopted  in  the  North,  and  in  the  case  of  Kentucky  the  ancient 
method  prevailed  down  to  our  own  day. 

The  English  opponents  of  the  ballot  argued  down  to  the  very 
Jast  that  secret  voting  would  promote  hypocrisy.  At  the  same 
time  they  sturdily  contended  —  and  with  good  grounds  —  that 
the  American  ballot  was  not  really  secret  at  all.  With  tickets 
printed  and  circulated  by  the  candidates  or  party  managers, 
with  absolutely  no  privacy  for  the  voter  in  preparing  his  ballot, 
it  was  only  in  exceptional  cases  that  any  citizen's  vote  was  his 
personal  secret.  There  was  nothing  in  either  the  laws  or  the 
customs  of  the  country  to  enforce  secrecy,  and,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  public  opinion  did  not  demand  such  enforcement.  Eng- 
land profited  sooner  than  we  from  this  experience.  It  was  shown 
that  bribery  flourished  where  the  briber  was  permitted  to  see  that 
the  bribed  voter  "delivered  the  goods."  Therefore,  when  the 
Ballot  Act  of  1872  was  drafted,  British  statesmen  saw  to  it  that 
American  mistakes  were  not  copied.  They  wisely  adopted  the 
essential  features  of  the  system  that  had  been  in  successful  opera- 
tion in  the  Australian  colonies  for  nearly  a  score  of  years.  A 
booth  was  provided  in  which  the  voter,  absolutely  alone,  must 
prepare  and  fold  his  ballot,  which  was  printed  by  the  Govern- 
ment instead  of  at  private  expense,  and  which  could  be  obtained 
only  from  the  duly  appointed  election  officials.  Safeguards 
were  thrown  around  the  voter's  privacy  at  the  polls.  A  heavy 
blow  was  struck  at  bribery  when  votes  could  no  longer  be  de- 
livered openly  to  the  buyers.  It  was  admittedly  unprofitable 
to  deal  in  a  commodity  whose  whole  value  rested  on  the  word  of 
an  interested  party,  and  which  by  no  manipulation  of  the  election 
machinery  could  be  "checked  up." 

The  Australian  ballot  had  been  in  use,  ...  for  almost  twenty 
years  before  England  made  it  a  part  of  her  own  electoral  ma- 
chinery, and  it  was  almost  another  twenty  years  before  the 
United  States  was  ready  to  take  this  leaf  out  of  Great  Britain's 
experience.  The  adoption  of  the  principles  of  secrecy  and  an 
official  ballot  by  so  many  States  in  the  years  1889-93  meant  a 


214  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

great  gain  for  the  cause  of  pure  elections  in  this  country.  At- 
tempted perversions  of  the  means  and  thwartings  of  the  ends  of 
true  reform  which  have  crept  into  many  of  the  ballot  laws  should 
not  blind  us  to  the  fact  that  these  two  principles  have  become 
imbedded  in  our  legislation.  Whatever  arrangement  of  names 
upon  the  ballot  may  be  prescribed  by  this  Legislature  or  that, 
we  may  rest  assured  that  public  sentiment  will  not  in  this  day 
permit  a  return  to  unofficial  voting-papers  or  the  abandonment 
of  those  legal  provisions  which  now  secure  the  voter's  privacy. 

It  may  safely  be  assumed  that  every  State  will  retain  these 
essentials  of  an  adequate  ballot  law,  but  in  other  features  there 
are  now  and  probably  will  continue  to  be  wide  divergences.  .  . 

2.    FORMS  OF  BALLOT1 

The  forms  which  the  Australian  Ballot  has  taken  in  America 
are  almost  as  numerous  as  the  states  which  have  adopted  it. 
Some  of  the  more  striking  contrasts  will  serve  to  illustrate  how 
the  principle  has  been  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  different  com- 
monwealths. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  show  not  only  that  the  form 
of  the  ballot  has  a  very  powerful  influence  on  the  results  of  elec- 
tions, both  as  regards  the  freedom  of  the  voter  in  making  his 
choice  and  the  accuracy  with  which  he  records  it,  but  also  to 
bring  out,  so  far  as  possible,  the  precise  effects  produced  by  each 
variety  of  form.  .  . 

To-day,  after  seventeen  years  of  experience,  the  diversity  of 
legislation  in  this  country  is  certainly  as  great  as  when  the  secret 
ballot  was  a  novelty. 

Take  the  mere  matter  of  size  and  shape.  The  voter  in  Wis- 
consin unfolds  in  the  booth  a  hugh  blanket  sheet  which  in  1904 
measured  thirty-five  inches  by  twenty-four.  In  Florida  in  the 
same  year  he  made  his  marks  on  a  narrow  strip  three  and  one- 

1  Allen,  Philip  L.,  "  Ballot  Laws  and  their  Workings,"  Political  Science 
Quarterly,  Vol.  XXI,  No.  i,  1906. 


The  Ballot  215 

half  inches  wide  and  thirty-one  and  one-half  inches  long.  From 
these  the  styles  run  all  the  way  down  to  the  sheet  of  hardly  more 
than  note-paper  size  used  in  Maine  (10  X  8)  and  Oregon  (8  X  12). 
A  number  of  the  states  undertake  to  help  out  the  illiterate  voter 
by  a  picture  gallery  of  party  emblems,  but  even  in  this  no  party 
adheres  everywhere  to  one  design.  The  Socialists  come  nearest 
to  uniformity,  two  clasped  hands  in  front  of  a  globe  being  their 
emblem  in  Alabama,  Delaware,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Kentucky, 
Louisiana,  and  New  Hampshire,  though  a  torch  heads  their 
column  in  Michigan,  Ohio,  New  York,  and  Utah.  The  Prohibi- 
tionists are  at  the  other  extreme.  The  only  emblem  on  which 
any  two  of  their  state  organizations  agree  is  the  sun  rising  over 
a  body  of  water.  This  emblem  is  used  in  Indiana  and  Kansas. 
They  have  hatchets  in  Alabama,  a  house  and  yard  in  Delaware, 
a  phoenix  in  Kentucky,  an  armorial  device  in  Michigan,  an  anchor 
in  New  Hampshire,  a  fountain  in  New  York  and  a  rose  in  Ohio. 
The  Populists  show  nearly  as  much  variety,  using  a  combination 
of  plough,  pick  and  saw  in  Alabama,  an  anvil  in  Delaware,  a 
liberty  bell  in  New  York,  a  plough  in  Indiana  and  Kentucky,  a 
frame  cottage  and  a  tree  in  Kansas,  a  factory  marked  "pro- 
ducers unite"  in  New  Hampshire,  and  a  flag-covered  box  labelled 
"Jefferson,  Jackson  and  Lincoln"  in  Michigan.  An  eagle  is  the 
commonest  device  of  the  Republican  party  and  a  gamecock  of 
the  Democratic ;  but  the  former  party  is  represented  by  a  statue 
of  Vulcan  in  Alabama,  a  log  cabin  in  Kentucky,  an  elephant  in 
Louisiana,  and  a  portrait  of  Lincoln  with  the  flag  as  background 
in  Michigan,  while  the  Democrats  have  a  plough  in  Delaware, 
a  flag  in  Michigan,  and  a  star  in  New  Hampshire  and  New 
York.  .  . 

These  superficial  dissimilarities,  however,  merely  reflect  the 
diversity  that  exists  in  regard  to  fundamentals.  The  especial 
point  to  be  considered  first  is  the  relative  ease  with  which  under 
different  ballot  laws  a  split  ticket  and  a  straight  ticket  may  be 
voted.  So  far  as  this  matter  is  concerned,  the  mere  shape  or 
mechanical  arrangement  of  the  ballot  is  by  no  means  decisive. 


216  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

As  will  appear  later,  two  states  may  have  official  ballots  practi- 
cally identical,  so  far  as  the  printer's  work  is  concerned,  and  yet, 
by  reason  of  the  statutes  prescribing  the  method  of  marking,  one 
of  these  may  offer  the  greatest  encouragement  to  the  independent 
voter  while  the  other  puts  the  heaviest  penalty  on  all  but  the 
straight  party  man. 

For  the  purposes  of  classifying  such  enactments  we  will  take 
in  each  state  the  hypothetical  case  of  two  voters :  A,  who  de- 
sires to  vote  the  straight  Republican  ticket,  and  B,  whose  choice 
falls  on  a  Democrat  for  governor  and  Republicans  for  all  other 
offices.  At  our  imaginary  election  there  are  to  be  chosen  ten 
presidential  electors  and  ten  state  and  local  officers.  In  many  of 
the  states  B,  the  independent  voter,  has  the  choice  of  several 
methods  of  recording  his  preferences.  Where  such  choice  exists, 
it  is  here  presumed  that  he  will  choose  the  method  involving  the 
least  mechanical  difficulty  or  labor.  Generally  speaking,  the  in- 
dependent voter  is  the  intelligent  voter,  and  after  informing  him- 
self of  the  provisions  of  the  ballot  law  in  his  state,  he  will  save 
himself  unnecessary  trouble  by  taking  the  shortest  cut. 

The  commonest  ballot  is  the  party-column  type,  modifications 
of  which  were  used  in  twenty-three  of  the  forty-five  states  at 
the  last  national  election.  These  all  agree  in  having  the  full 
ticket  of  each  party  printed  in  a  single  column,  usually  so  ar- 
ranged that  all  candidates  for  a  given  office  have  their  names  in 
the  same  horizontal  line.  In  voting  such  a  ballot  five  different 
methods  are  in  vogue. 

1.  A  makes  a  separate  mark  opposite  each  of  the  twenty 
names  in  the  Republican  column.     B  makes  nineteen  in  that 
column  and  one  opposite  the  democratic  nominee  for  governor. 
This  is  the  rule  in  Montana. 

2.  A  makes  a  single  mark  at  the  head  of  the  Republican 
column.     B  does  the  same,  and  makes  an  additional  mark  op- 
posite the  name  of  the  Democrat  for  governor.     This  is  the  rule 
in  California,  New  York,  North  Dakota,  Washington,  South 
Dakota,  Illinois,  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  and  Kentucky. 


The  Ballot  217 

3.  A  makes  a  single  mark  at  the  head  of  the  Republican 
column.     B  does  the  same,  then  draws  a  line  through  the  name 
of  the  Republican  candidate  for  governor,  and  makes  a  mark  op- 
posite the  Democrat.    This  is  the  rule  in  Michigan,  New  Hamp- 
shire, Utah,  Wyoming,  Idaho  and  Alabama. 

4.  A  makes  a  single  mark  at  the  head  of  the  Republican  col- 
umn.    B  makes  twenty  marks,  one  opposite  the  Democrat  for 
governor  and  nineteen  opposite  the  names  of  all  other  officers  in 
the  Republican  column.    This  is  the  rule  in  Iowa,  Louisiana, 
Kansas,  Vermont  and  Indiana. 

5.  A  designates  the  Republican  column  (either  by  a  cross  or 
by  drawing  a  line  down  the  others).     B  does  the  same,  and  then 
inserts  the  Democratic  gubernatorial  candidate's  name  in  that 
column,  either  by  paster  or  by  writing  it  in,  although  that  name 
is  already  printed  on  the  ballot  in  an  adjacent  column.    This  is 
the  rule  in  Delaware,  Maine  and  West  Virginia. 

6.  The  next  form  of  ballot  is  virtually  the  foregoing  one  cut 
into  strips.     The  voter  receives  a  bundle  of  official  ballots,  one 
slip  for  each  party.     A  deposits  the  Republican  slip  without  al- 
teration.    B  pastes  or  writes  in  the  name  of  the  Democrat  for 
governor.    This  is  the  rule  in  Connecticut,  Missouri,  New  Jersey 
and  Texas. 

7.  Georgia,  North  Carolina  and  South  Carolina  are  the  three 
states  which  have  no  official  ballots.     The  candidates  or  party 
organizations  usually  prepare  and  distribute  the  ballots,  which 
may  be  written  or  printed  or  partly  written  and  partly  printed. 
A  and  B  can  prepare  the  kinds  they  want  in  any  way  they  please, 
conforming  merely  to  certain  regulations  regarding  size  and 
quality  of  paper. 

The  fourteen  remaining  states  arrange  the  names  on  the  bal- 
lot by  offices  instead  of  by  parties.  There  are  six  varieties  to 
be  noted. 

8.  The  names  of  candidates  for  each  office  are  placed  within 
a  separate  "box"  or  printed  margin,  arranged  in  alphabetical 
order,  and  each  followed  by  the  name  of  the  party  making  the 


218  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

nomination  A  and  B  must  both  pick  out  and  mark  their  candi- 
dates one  by  one.  (They  will  make  eleven  marks  apiece  if  there 
is  provision  for  voting  all  ten  electors  at  once,  and  twenty  marks 
apiece  if  there  is  not.)  This  is  the  rule  in  Massachusetts,  Rhode 
Island,  Oregon,  Nevada  and  all  but  eleven  counties  of  Maryland. 

9.  The  names  within  the  "boxes"  are  not  arranged  alpha- 
betically but  in  the  same  order  of  parties  for  each  office.    The 
party  name  is  printed  after  each  name.     Thus  A  finds  the  Repub- 
lican candidates  invariably  first  on  the  list  (or  second,  as  the 
case  may  be),  and  B  can  follow  the  same  uniform  rule  except  as 
regards  the  governorship.     This  is  the  rule  in  Minnesota. 

10.  The  names  are  not  in  alphabetical  order,  and  those  for 
each  office  are  merely  printed  in  a  close  group  without  the  ruled 
line  to  separate  them.     Instead  of  marking  opposite  the  desired 
name,  the  voter  strikes  out  all  except  that  one.    A  and  B  thus 
make  the  same  number  of  erasures.    This  is  the  rule  in  Arkansas 
and  Virginia. 

11.  The  names  are  grouped  by  offices,  but  the  party  of  each 
is  not  designated.    This  is  the  rule  in  Florida,  Mississippi,  Ten- 
nessee and  eleven  counties  of  Maryland. 

12.  There  is  a  "box"  for  each  office,  the  names  are  arranged 
in  alphabetical  order  with  party  designation,  but  across  the  top 
is  printed  "I  hereby  vote  a  straight—         — ticket,  except 
where  I  have  marked  opposite  the  name  of  some  other  candi- 
date."   A  simply  writes  the  word  "Republican"  in  the  blank. 
B  does  the  same,  afterwards  making  a  mark  opposite  the  name 
of  the  Democrat  nominated  for  governor.    This  is  the  rule  in 
Colorado. 

13.  There  is  a  "box"  for  each  office  with  party  designation, 
but  somewhere  on  the  ballot  a  space  is  provided  for  voting  a 
straight  ticket  of  each  party.     The  electors  are  so  arranged  that 
all  can  be  voted  by  one  mark.     A  makes  one  mark  in  the  straight 
ticket  space.     B  makes  eleven  marks,  picking  out  his  candidates 
from  each  party  group.    This  is  the   rule  in  Nebraska   and 
Pennsylvania. 


The  Ballot  219 

Thus  at  one  extreme  are  the  states  in  which  the  independent 
voter  in  the  hypothetical  case  is  put  to  twenty  times  as  much 
mechanical  labor  in  voting  as  the  hide-bound  partisan,  and  at 
the  other  extreme,  those  in  which  the  two  are  put  to  exactly  the 
same  amount  of  trouble  in  voting.  Iowa  and  Montana  have  bal- 
lots which  look  as  much  alike  as  the  pages  of  two  conservative 
newspapers,  yet  they  are  at  opposite  poles  as  regards  the  pre- 
mium they  put  on  straight  ticket  voting. 

The  Colorado  ballot,  but  for  a  single  printed  line,  would  be 
extremely  like  that  of  Massachusetts,  yet,  it  really  stands  on  an 
exact  parity  with  New  York's  or  Ohio's  as  regards  the  ease  of 
split  ticket  voting.  Pennsylvania's  ballot  does  not  look  like 
that  of  Kansas,  yet,  on  analysis  they  are  seen  to  differ  essentially 
only  in  the  provision  which  lets  the  Pennsylvanian  vote  for  all 
the  state's  presidential  electors  at  once,  by  a  single  X  mark.  .  . 

A  person  of  any  intelligence,  who  knows  how  to  read  and  has 
taken  the  trouble  to  find  out  the  names  of  the  candidates,  ought 
seemingly  to  have  no  difficulty  in  casting  his  vote  correctly  even 
with  the  most  confusing  of  these  forms.  (But  the  returns  of 
elections  show),  if  nothing  else,  the  proclivity  of  the  American 
voter  to  make  mistakes  where  there  is  any  possible  excuse  for 
his  doing  so.  It  is  this  which  makes  it  impossible  to  say  of  any 
type  of  ballot,  "This  is  the  best,  and  every  community  should 
adopt  it."  We  know  that  the  straight  ticket  circle  discourages 
independent  voting,  which  is  the  same  thing  as  saying  that  it  im- 
proves the  bad  candidate's  chances  of  being  "pulled  through" 
by  the  popularity  of  the  good  candidate  of  his  party.  But  in 
letting  the  illiterate  man  vote,  we  assume  that  he  is  competent  to 
decide  at  least  which  party  he  wants  to  put  in  power.  The  party 
circle  with  the  picture  over  it  may  conceivably  in  some  communi- 
ties be  the  only  system  under  which  he  can  vote  without  blun- 
ders. A  state  which  contains  many  such  illiterates  and  is  de- 
termined to  let  them  vote  must  therefore  decide,  before  fixing  on 
any  form  of  ballot,  whether  in  view  of  its  peculiar  conditions 
haphazard  voting  or  hide-bound  voting  is  the  lesser  evil.  .  . 


22O  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

If  it  is  twenty  times  as  much  trouble  to  vote  a  split  as  a  straight 
ticket,  few  persons  are  going  to  choose  the  former,  whether  the 
unit  is  a  pencil  mark  or  the  movement  of  a  celluloid  button. 
The  fear  of  making  a  mistake  that  will  invalidate  entirely  is, 
it  is  true,  removed,  and  this  should  give  the  voter  a  greater 
sense  of  freedom,  but  the  argument  of  least  resistance  applies 
nevertheless.  .  .  . 

This  is  a  period  in  which  the  importance  of  little  things  is 
being  more  and  more  recognized.  Advertising  experts  have 
learned  to  estimate  the  psychological  value  of  various  typo- 
graphical arrangements.  Railroad  companies  have  conducted 
expensive  tests  to  determine  what  style  of  type  in  their  time- 
tables will  be  read  with  the  minimum  of  mistakes  and  thus  save 
their  patrons  from  missing  trains  through  misreading  the  start- 
ing time.  At  least  as  careful  attention  should  be  given  to  the 
make-up  of  that  most  potent  of  all  sheets  of  paper,  the  ballot. 

3.    THE  ADVANTAGES   OF  THE  MASSACHUSETTS  BALLOT1 

The  Massachusetts  ballot  has  received  more  general  com- 
mendation than  any  other  form.  In  it  the  voter  must  indicate 
not  merely  his  general  party  preference  but  his  choice  of  the 
candidates  for  each  office  upon  which  his  vote  is  to  count. 

I  do  not  for  a  moment  claim  that  the  Massachusetts  system  of 
balloting  is  going  to  cure  all  our  political  evils,  but  I  do  claim 
this,  that  of  all  the  systems  of  balloting  that  I  know  anything 
about  it  gives  to  the  people  the  freest  opportunity  to  express 
their  wishes.  .  . 

Massachusetts  is  neither  as  largely  native  born  in  its  popula- 
tion nor  does  it  stand  as  high  educationally  as  people  usually 
suppose.  Only  44  out  of  100  of  our  citizens  are  native  born  of 
native  parents,  and  on  the  point  of  literacy  we  stand  only  twenty- 

1  Dana,  Richard  Henry, "  The  Form  of  Ballot.  "  City  Club  Bulletin,  City 
Club  of  Philadelphia,  April  21,  1910. 


The  Ballot  221 

third  in  the  states  of  the  country.  .1  say  this  in  advance  because 
you  may  think,  and  sometimes  it  has  been  claimed,  that  the 
Massachusetts  form  of  ballot  is  successful  only  where  the  native 
born  prevail  and  where  the  people  generally  are  extremely  well 
educated.  .  . 

Under  the  Massachusetts  system,  as  you  doubtless  know,  the 
candidates  for  the  same  office  are  grouped  together  alphabeti- 
cally on  the  ballot  with  the  party  name  or  names  after  each  candi- 
date, and  a  citizen  votes  for  an  official  in  a  group,  or  officials  in 
case  more  than  one  are  to  be  voted  for  in  such  a  group,  by  placing 
a  cross  mark  opposite  the  name  and  party  designation  of  the 
candidate  or  candidates  he  chooses.  For  example,  all  the  candi- 
dates for  Governor  are  in  one  group,  all  those  for  Lieutenant 
Governor  are  in  another  group,  and  so  on.  .  . 

Specimen  ballots,  of  course,  are  printed  on  colored  paper  and 
posted  in  public  places  in  the  streets  and  also  in  the  polling  rooms 
so  that  voters  may  examine  them  before  receiving  an  official 
ballot. 

Now,  the  chief  objections  urged  against  the  Massachusetts 
system  are,  that  it  takes  too  long  to  mark  the  ballot;  that  it 
must  cause  delay  in  large  precincts  especially ;  that  the  less  edu- 
cated must  be  discouraged  and  stay  away  from  the  polls  or,  if 
they  come,  must  make  mistakes ;  that  the  system  must  favor  in- 
dependence to  the  extent  of  breaking  up  the  parties ;  that  there 
is  a  general  falling  off  from  the  head  of  the  ticket  because,  as  it 
is  sometimes  urged,  the  voters  get  tired  and  stop  marking ;  that 
persons  standing  first  in  groups,  with  names  nearer  the  head  of 
the  alphabet,  have  an  advantage  over  those  coming  lower  down 
in  a  group;  and  that  generally  speaking  the  system  is  not 
popular.  .  . 

Of  all  these  points  it  happens  that  we  have  a  good  deal  of 
accurate  information.  The  average  city  precinct  has  from  400  to 
700  or  800  registered  male  voters,  a  few  have  over  1000,  and 
some  of  those  are  in  manufacturing  districts  where  most  of  the 
voters  have  to  vote  early  in  the  morning  or  at  the  noon  hour. 


222  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

There  are  eleven  polling  places  in  the  state  in  which  there  are 
from  2000  to  3000  registered  voters  in  each,  and  yet  there  has 
been  no  difficulty  in  their  voting  without  delay  or  inconvenience. 
The  actual  time  in  marking  a  single  ballot  is  well  under  two  min- 
utes, while  many  people  mark  their  ballots,  in  less  than  one 
minute.  .  . 

As  to  the  claim  that  people  are  kept  away  from  the  polls, 
exactly  the  opposite  is  the  case.  In  the  first  four  years  it  was 
found  that  more  people  by  twenty  per  cent,  voted  for  Governor 
than  in  the  last  four  years  under  the  old  system,  and  there  was 
an  increase  in  population  of  only  n  per  cent.  .  . 

As  to  the  less  educated,  especially,  being  kept  away  from  the 
polls,  the  cities  are  supposed  to  contain  a  larger  proportion  of 
less  educated  voters  than  the  towns,  and  yet  in  the  three  years 
beginning  with  1889  when  the  Massachusetts  Act  went  into 
effect,  the  percentage  of  registered  voters  voting  in  the  twenty- 
five  cities  was  greater  than  the  percentage  voting  in  all  the 
towns.  .  . 

While  the  system  undoubtedly  favors  independent  voting  it 
has  by  no  means  broken  up  parties.  That  it  does,  however,  se- 
cure to  the  voters  a  free  chance  to  express  their  views  has  been 
most  markedly  shown.  .  . 

In  1904,  though  the  state  went  Republican  for  President  by 
92,000  it  went  Democratic  for  Governor  by  nearly  36,000  on  the 
same  day  and  on  the  same  ballots,  while  again  Mr.  Curtis  Guild, 
Jr.,  a  Republican  candidate  for  Lieutenant  Governor  was  elected 
by  30,000  plurality  on  the  same  ballot  on  the  same  day,  a  shifting 
of  about  126,000  votes.  .  . 

As  to  the  complaint  that  there  is  a  falling  off  from  the  head 
of  the  ticket  because  the  voters  get  tired  and  stop  from  sheer 
fatigue,  it  is,  to  be  sure,  generally  true  that  there  is  a  falling 
off  from  the  head  of  the  ticket,  but  this  is  by  no  means  universally 
true.  A  careful  analysis  of  the  votes  will  disclose  the  fact  that 
voters  voted  for  those  offices  that  interested  them,  and  over 
which  there  had  been  some  canvass,  no  matter  where  located  on 


The  Ballot  223 

the  ballot.  It  also  clearly  shows  a  popular  vote  against  the  long 
ballot,  which  we  still  have  in  our  State  elections  in  Massachu- 
setts. .  . 

As  to  the  claim  that  the  one  whose  surname  begins  with  "A" 
has  an  advantage  over  the  one  whose  name  begins  with  "W"  in 
the  same  group  on  the  ballot,  there  is  just  a  slight  basis  of  fact 
for  this  contention.  In  some  minor  offices,  over  which  there  is 
no  contest,  especially  where  four  or  five  vacancies  of  the  same 
kind  in  the  same  group  are  to  be  filled,  such  as  members  of  school 
committees,  assessors  of  taxes  and  the  like,  and  especially  where 
the  candidates  have  been  nominated  on  non-partisan  or  citizens' 
tickets,  an  initial  letter  early  in  the  alphabet  has  been  an  advan- 
tage. But  even  in  these  minor  offices  this  has  not  been  true 
where  there  has  been  a  public  contest,  as  has  been  proved  over 
and  over  again.  .  . 

Now,  as  to  the  popularity  of  the  system  in  Massachusetts, 
we  can  say  that  though  several  attempts  have  been  made  to 
adopt  the  party  column  and  single  mark  system,  they  have  al- 
ways been  defeated  by  a  large  majority,  —  so  large  some  five  or 
six  years  ago  that  no  one  has  even  attempted  to  introduce  a  bill 
in  the  Legislature  to  go  over  to  the  party  column  system.  In 
the  State  election  the  towns  of  Massachusetts  must  use  the  Aus- 
tralian system  but  in  their  town  elections  they  vote  in  any  way 
they  please.  We  have  a  singularly  strong  proof  of  the  popularity 
of  the  system  in  the  fact  that  two-thirds  of  all  the  towns  in 
Massachusetts,  including  every  single  town  of  any  large  popu- 
lation, have  voluntarily  adopted  the  Massachusetts  form  of  Aus- 
tralian ballot.  The  only  exceptions  are  the  little  towns  of  400  to 
600  inhabitants,  who  all  know  each  other  and  vote  in  a  very  in- 
formal manner.  The  method  is  also  used  in  the  election  of  over- 
seers at  Harvard  University  and  almost  universally  throughout 
the  state. 

To  sum  up,  under  the  Massachusetts  system,  the  ballots  are 
rapidly  and  easily  marked,  there  is  no  delay  or  blocking  even  at 
very  large  precincts.  The  voters  are  not  kept  from  voting,  but 


224  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

on  the  contrary  more  come  to  the  polls  than  before  the  system 
was  adopted.  The  less  educated,  and  even  those  accustomed 
chiefly  to  manual  labor,  mark  their  ballots  intelligently  and 
clearly.  There  is  little  falling  off  in  the  vote  from  the  head  of 
the  ticket  to  offices  lower  down,  except  for  those  offices  that  do 
not  interest  the  public ;  but  even  there,  in  no  way  of  itself,  does 
this  falling  off  influence  results.  On  the  other  hand  each  office 
gets  separate  consideration  and  this  tends  to  raise  the  character 
of  the  nominations  for  the  less  important  offices  on  the  ticket. 
The  alphabetical  order  makes  practically  no  difference  in  cases 
where  the  public  has  an  opinion  to  express,  and  the  system  is 
popular  with  the  people.  Even  the  party  workers  have  to  pro- 
fess to  like  it,  whether  they  do  or  not. 


4.  THE  FEDERAL  ACT  REQUIRING  WRITTEN  OR  PRINTED  BALLOTS 
FOR  THE  ELECTION  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF 
REPRESENTATIVES  l 

Due  to  the  Federal  character  of  our  government  the  form 
of  ballot  is  primarily  in  the  control  of  the  states.  Even  the 

';  fofm  of  ballot  for  election  of  members  of  the  national  House  of 
//Representatives  is  under  the  control  of  the  states  with  the  ex- 
ception that  the  ballot  must  be  written  or  printed. 

CHAP.  CXXXIX.  An  act  to  amend  an  Act  approved 
February  twenty-eighth,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy- two, 
amending  an  Act  approved  May  thirty-one,  eighteen  hundred 
and  seventy,  entitled  "An  Act  to  enforce  the  Rights  of  Citizens 
of  the  United  States  to  vote  in  the  several  States  of  this  Union, 
and  for  other  Purposes." 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  sec- 
tion nineteen  of  an  act  to  amend  an  act  approved  May  thirty- 
first,  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy,  entitled  "  An  Act  to  enforce 

United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  17,  p.  61,  May  3,  1872. 


The  Ballot  225 

the  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  in  the  several 
States  of  this  Union,  and  for  other  Purposes,"  and  amended  act 
approved  February  twenty-eighth,  eighteen  hundred  and 
seventy-one,  shall  be,  and  hereby  is,  amended  so  as  to  read  as 
follows:  "Sec.  19.  That  all  votes  for  Representatives  in  Con- 
gress shall  hereafter  be  by  written  or  printed  ballot,  any  law  of 
any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding;  and  all  votes  re- 
ceived or  recorded  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall 
be  of  none  effect :  Provided,  That  this  section  shall  not  apply  to 
any  State  voting  otherwise  whose  elections  for  said  Representa- 
tives shall  occur  previous  to  the  regular  meeting  of  its  legislature 
next  after  the  approval  of  said  act." 
Approved,  May  3,  1872. 

5.  BALLOT  REFORM:   NEED  OF  SIMPLIFICATION1 

The  large  number  of  offices  filled  by  election  is  becoming 
an  increasing  source  of  complaint.  Ballot  simplification,  by 
separating  elections,  by  filling  some  of  the  offices  otherwise 
than  by  election  and  by  various  other  means  is  urged  as  one 
way  by  which  popular  interest  in  elections  and  a  greater  feeling 
of  responsibility  by  those  elected  may  be  secured. 

The  theory  of  an  election,  I  take  it,  is  somewhat  as  follows :  It 
is  known  that  on  a  certain  day  the  people  are  to  select  an  officer 
to  perform  on  their  behalf  certain  duties  and  to  hold  certain 
powers.  The  office  is  made  desirable  by  reason  of  the  salary 
and  honor  and  power  attached  to  it.  Various  aspirants  for  the 
place  come  before  the  public  by  one  method  or  another,  make 
known  their  qualifications  for  the  office,  explain  the  policies 
which  they  desire  to  put  into  effect  through  the  power  attached 
to  that  office,  and  the  voters  go  to  the  polls  on  election  day  and 
indicate  on  the  ballot  which  of  the  aspirants  they  prefer. 
This  process  constitutes  an  election  as  fondly  imagined  by 

1  Childs,  R.  S.,  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Association 
Vol.  VI,  1909;  pp.  65-70. 

Q 


226  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

those  who  first  framed  our  various  constitutions  and  charters. 
This  idea  of  an  election  is  perfectly  sound  and  perfectly  practical. 
It  has,  however,  certain  distinct  limitations  based  on  familiar 
facts  of  human  nature,  and  in  the  United  States  these  limitations 
have  been  stupidly  overstepped. 

The  theory  of  an  election,  as  outlined,  presupposes  that  the 
voter  is  to  have  an  opportunity  to  get  some  kind  of  acquaintance 
with  the  claims  of  the  various  aspirants  for  the  office.  If  he  fails 
to  do  this,  it  is  inevitable  that  his  vote  will  be  unintelligent  and 
easily  controlled  by  those  who  have  an  interest  in  the  election. 

If  the  voter  in  a  large  community  is  to  know  the  candidates, 
it  is  necessary  that  the  latter  secure  a  proper  amount  of  publicity 
so  that  each  candidate  shall  become  in  the  mind  of  the  voter 
a  definite  mental  picture  —  a  picture  so  definite  that  the  voter 
will  develop  a  preference  based  on  adequate  information.  It 
must  be  evident  that  there  is  a  limit  to  the  number  of  elections 
which  can  be  held  simultaneously  without  blurring  these  mental 
pictures.  Any  man  must  admit,  for  instance,  that  it  would  not 
be  practical  to  hold  100  real  elections  on  one  day.  No  voter 
could  remember  several  hundred  candidates  even  if  he  tried  to 
do  so  in  systematic  fashion,  and  a  system  which  put  the  names  of 
several  hundred  candidates  for  a  hundred  offices  upon  the  ballot 
(without  the  aid  of  some  guide  or  trademark  label)  would  result 
in  confusion,  out  of  which  emerge  as  victors,  not  the  candi- 
dates who  were  most  successful  in  getting  votes,  but  those  who 
were  least  ^successful.  It  would  be  like  letting  school  children 
vote,  and  the  result  would  have  no  significance  as  an  expression 
of  opinion. 

The  same  condition  will  be  true  of  a  ballot  which  has  much 
less  than  100  places  to  be  filled.  It  will  be  true,  in  part  at  least, 
at  any  election  where  a  non-partisan  ballot  would  be  impracti- 
cable. If  you  apply  this  test  of  leaving  off  the  party  labels, 
you  will  see  by  analyzing  the  resulting  bewilderment,  to  just 
what  extent  the  people  are  ruling,  and  to  what  extent  they  are 
being  led  by  a  ring  in  their  nose. 


N 

\  The  Ballot  227 

;    \ 

Take  the  ballot  you  votddat  the  last  election  !  Cut  it  up  with 
a  pair  of  shears  and  paste  it  together  with  the  party  labels  elimi- 
nated, so  that  for  the  office  of  county  clerk,  for  instance  you  will 
be  compelled  to  choose  between  Smith  and  Jones  and  Robinson. 
If  on  looking  over  this  ballot  you  find  that  you  are  lost  without 
the  party  label  to  guide  you,  that  your  vote  for  certain  offices 
was  without  knowledge  or  intelligence,  to  that  extent  you  will 
know  you  have  not  been  exercising  control,  but  have,  by  a  kind 
of  proxy-giving,  delegated  your  share  of  the  control  of  those 
offices  to  some  one  else.  Extend  the  same  examination  to  the 
entire  electorate  and  you  will  see  to  what  extent  it  has  proven  a 
failure  as  an  instrument  of  popular  control  of  government. 

A  voter  who  votes  blindly  is  being  bossed.  Very  few  voters, 
even  the  illiterate,  vote  a  ballot  entirely  blindly.  Even  the 
Italian  street  digger  probably  has  certain  reasons  for  supporting 
A  or  B  for  governor ;  but  every  American  citizen,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  professional  politicians,  votes  blindly  on  certain  parts 
of  his  ballot,  and  is  to  that  extent  being  bossed. 

The  wide  acceptance  of  bossism  is  commonly  denounced  as 
"apathy"  or  "indifference,"  and  people  say  "the  citizens  are 
asleep  and  only  the  politicians  are  awake."  It  is  an  ancient 
libel.  American  citizens  are  as  a  whole  no  more  apathetic  than 
the  citizens  of  any  other  democratic  nation.  If  the  burghers  of 
Glasgow  were  brought  in  a  body  to  Philadelphia,  and  compelled 
to  hold  a  few  elections  under  the  present  Philadelphia  system, 
they  would  get  the  same  kind  of  government  that  the  Phila- 
delphians  are  now  getting  for  themselves.  And  likewise,  if  the 
people  of  Philadelphia  were  transferred  to  Glasgow,  the  govern- 
ment of  that  city  would  continue  to  be  one  of  the  best  in  the 
world  year  after  year  and  election  after  election.  Human  nature 
is  the  same  in  Philadelphia  and  Glasgow.  The  essential  dif- 
ference is  only  in  the  size  and  character  of  the  burden  of  partici- 
pation thrown  upon  the  electorate.  If  you  argue  differently 
you  must  be  prepared  to  prove  that  the  flood  changed  the  human 
nature  of  the  people  of  Galveston.  The  city  of  Houston  ad- 


228  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

vertises  that  its  city  hall  is  run  like  a  business  office.  Once  it 
was  run  like  a  political  hang-out.  Did  the  adoption  of  the 
commission  plan  of  government  suddenly  change  the  character 
of  the  people  of  Houston  ? 

Apathy,  indifference,  are  relative,  depending  entirely  upon 
how  much  is  demanded.  Suppose,  for  instance,  there  were  but 
one  polling  place  for  an  entire  city,  so  that  the  citizens  must 
travel  considerable  distances  on  election  day  in  order  to  cast  their 
votes.  Immediately  we  should  confront  the  phenomenon  of  a 
decreased  vote  —  more  "apathy"  as  compared  with  the  present 
condition,  where  there  is  a  polling  place  at  every  barber  shop. 

Suppose  we  put  the  polling  place  ten  miles  out  of  town  on  the 
top  of  a  mountain  so  that  every  citizen  had  to  go  out  and  scram- 
ble all  day  to  get  there  —  we  should  have  a  still  smaller  vote. 
Most  of  the  citizens  would  stay  in  town  and  attend  to  their  own 
business,  and  the  reformers  would  say  in  disgust  "the  citizens 
are  supremely  apathetic  and  indifferent  and  won't  do  their  duty." 
Yet  the  people  of  the  town  are  the  same  people  all  the  time  — 
no  more  really  apathetic  than  when  the  full  vote  turned  out  on 
election  day  under  the  other  conditions. 

That  is  what  I  mean  by  saying  that  apathy  is  relative,  depend- 
ing entirely  upon  how  much  is  required. 

We  have  made  our  politics  even  more  inaccessible  to  the  people 
than  I  have  described  when  I  put  the  polling  place  on  the  moun- 
tain top.  If  you  and  I  could,  by  walking  10  miles  and  climbing 
a  mountain  once  a  year  become  effective  participants  in  politics, 
it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  we  would  make  the  effort.  But  we 
have  a  system  of  politics  so  elaborate  by  reason  of  the  multiplic- 
ity of  elective  offices,  that  politics  has  come  to  be  considered  a 
separate  profession.  That  is  the  very  climax  of  inaccessibility ; 
it  removes  politics  to  a  distance  equivalent  to  a  year's  journey. 

Every  citizen  knows  that,  reformers  to  the  contrary,  little 
is  gained  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  citizen  by  attendance  at 
caucuses  and  primaries.  A  citizen  must  become  so  familiar  with 
political  workings,  so  strenuous  in  his  opinions  and  in  his  politi- 


The  Ballot  229 

cal  activity,  that  he  becomes  a  member  of  the  little  conclave 
that  meets  previous  to  the  caucuses,  to  set  the  tables  for  the 
electorate,  before  he  begins  to  exercise  any  real  control  over  the 
business  of  nomination  and  election.  He  can  do  that  only  at 
the  serious  sacrifice  of  other  business.  In  consequence,  the  men 
who  become  and  remain  effective  politicians  are  either  men  who 
find  in  politics  satisfactory  remuneration,  or  else  the  leisure  class 
including  millionaires  and  tramps. 

The  hope  of  America  does  not  lie  with  any  such  class  as  this, 
but  rather  with  the  men  whose  time  is  too  valuable  to  permit 
them  to  go  into  politics.  When  we  make  politics  a  profession, 
we  automatically  exclude  95  per  cent  of  the  voters,  —  the  great 
unbribable  mass  of  the  community.  To  restore  control  to  100 
per  cent  of  the  people,  to  secure  democracy  in  place  of  govern- 
ment-by-politicians,  we  must  so  simplify  politics  that  it  will  no 
longer  constitute  a  separate  profession ;  we  must  simplify  it  until 
a  busy  man  can,  in  his  scanty  spare  time,  become  sufficiently 
versed  in  its  mysteries  to  become  effective.  We  must  make 
politics  accessible  to  the  great  bulk  of  our  citizens. 

To  simplify  politics  means  that  we  must  strive  to  approach 
our  ideal  of  an  election,  where  the  candidates  come  forward,  get 
a  full  hearing  and  each  voter  selects  his  favorite  and  has  a  reason. 

One  test  of  practicability  is  the  need  for  a  "ticket"  or  a 
"label"  to  guide  the  voter;  and  when  we  call  for  the  selection 
of  10,  20  or  30  officials  on  one  day,  we  find  that  the  people  begin 
to  vote  by  tickets,  by  party  labels  instead  of  by  men,  giving 
themselves  over  blindly  to  the  guidance  of  politicians. 

But  it  is  certainly  possible  to  elect  one  man  on  one  day  in 
ideal  fashion.  Experience  has  demonstrated  that  beyond  a 
doubt.  The  experience  of  certain  western  cities  that  are  gov- 
erned by  commissions  of  five  elected  on  a  non-partisan  ballot 
shows  that  the  average  citizen  can  manage  to  select  five  separate 
favorite  candidates  without  the  aid  of  a  ticket.  Whether  the 
exact  limit  is  five  or  six  or  seven,  is  of  course  a  matter  that  cannot 
be  exactly  demonstrated.  But  tickets  have  been  used  at  times 


230  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

in  some  of  those  cities,  showing  that  five  is  at  least  near  the  bor- 
der line. 

Accessibility  thus  attained  is  not  enough,  however ;  the  people 
will  not  inevitably  participate  even  if  they  can.  Having  led  our 
horse  to  water  we  must  get  him  to  drink.  For  instance,  suppose 
we  elected  a  county  clerk  and  no  one  else  at  a  given  election. 
There  is  an  ideally  short  ballot  —  just  a  single  place  to  be  filled 

—  a  perfectly  "accessible"  bit  of  politics.     Yet  the  ballot  on 
that  occasion  would  fail  to  gather  the  judgment  of  the  people 
just  as  surely  as  if  the  county  clerk  were  lost  in  a  crowd  of  other 
minor  officials  at  the  bottom  of  a  long  ballot.      The  people  with 
a  few  exceptions  would  not  go  to  the  polls  or  pay  any  attention 
to  the  matter,  for  the  share  of  each  voter  in  the  matter  of  the 
county  clerkship  is  too  insignificant  to  deserve  attention.    The 
electorate  shrugs  its  big  shoulders  and  flatly  declines  to  be 
bothered. 

So  we  face  the  problem  of  devising  a  system  in  which  the  peo- 
ple not  only  can  participate  but  will  participate.  The  impor- 
tance of  the  election  must  reach  the  consciousness  of  every  voter. 
The  way  to  bring  this  about  is  not  by  exhortation  and  prayer, 
but  by  giving  real  importance  to  the  position  that  is  to  be  filled 
so  as  to  make  it  naturally  conspicuous.  For  instance  —  the 
office  of  state  assemblyman  in  New  York  is  among  the  neglected 
positions.  In  actual  practice  this  is  now  an  appointive  position 

—  appointive  by  some  self-established  and  irresponsible  coterie 
of  local  politicians.     Even  in  the  off-years  when  the  assembly- 
man is  sometimes  the  only  place  on  the  ballot,  experience  shows 
that  the  people  do  not  take  control.     The  place  cannot  of  course 
be  made  appointive  by  any  other  elective  officer.     The  proper 
alternative  is  to  increase  the  importance  of  the  office.     At  pres- 
ent the  assemblyman  is  a  mere  one  one-hundred-and-fiftieth  of 
one-half  of  a  legislature,  whose  actions  are  closely  circumscribed 
by  the  constitution  and  subject  to  the  veto  of  the  governor. 
Suppose  that,  following  the  experience  of  the  cities,  we  substitute 
one  chamber  for  the  present  bi-cameral  system,  and  triple  the 


The  Ballot  231 

size  of  the  districts.  Each  assemblyman  would  then  be  six 
times  as  important  and,  with  his  increased  capacity  for  good  or 
ill,  would  attract  more  criticism,  more  popular  examination. 
If  the  people  still  fail  to  get  excited  over  that  office,  cut  the  size 
of  the  assembly  in  half  again,  thrusting  upon  twenty-five  men  the 
responsibility  of  all  legislation  for  a  great  state.  And  surely 
then,  if  not  before,  the  office  will  reach  a  pinnacle  of  light  where 
the  whole  electorate  will  see  it  and  feel  concerned  about  it,  and 
where  it  will  be  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  politicians. 

And  so  we  have  two  practical  limitations  to  our  ideal  of  an 
election. 

1.  The  number  of  officials  to  be  elected  at  any  one  time  must 
be  limited  to  five  or  less ;   and 

2.  The  elective  offices  must  be  limited  to  those  that  are  of 
such  importance  and  character  that  the  people  will  consent  to 
exert  themselves  to  make  the  selection  themselves. 

In  building  a  democracy  everything  else  must  be  warped  to  fit 
these  fundamental  limitations.  For  these  are  the  limitations  of 
the  people  themselves.  We  cannot  wait  for  human  nature  to 
change,  we  must  order  our  institutions  to  fit  human  nature. 
There  is  no  hope  in  putting  a  square  collar  on  our  horse  and  then 
condemning  the  horse  for  failure  to  grow  a  square  neck.  Ac- 
cordingly, while  it  may  seem  desirable  to  have  a  state  treasurer 
elected  so  as  to  secure  independent  audit  of  accounts,  we  must 
secure  protection  in  some  different  way  if  it  is  found  in  practice 
that  the  people  do  not  select  the  state  treasurer  for  themselves. 

It  may  seem  desirable  in  a  city,  for  various  reasons,  to  have 
a  large  council  elected  at  large;  but  that  plan  with  all 
its  advantages  must  be  rejected  on  account  of  the  supreme  and 
unalterable  disadvantage  that  in  practice  the  real  selecting  under 
those  conditions  is  not  done  by  the  voters. 

No  matter  how  many  reasons  may  be  advocated  for  having  all 
county  officials  independently  elected,  those  reasons  cannot 
stand  against  the  overwhelming  and  unalterable  disadvantage 
that  those  offices  make  so  .little  appeal  to  the  popular  imagination 

• 


232  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

that  the  public  in  practice  ignores  them,  and  leaves  the  selection 
of  those  officials  to  be  settled,  without  supervision,  by  anybody 
who  volunteers.  Deplore  such  wanton  carelessness  if  you  will, 
but  the  public  is  too  big  to  be  spanked.  .  . 

6.    WOMEN  AND  THE   SUFFRAGE  1 

The  grant  of  suffrage  to  women  is  as  yet  an  experiment 
confined  to  the  western  part  of  the  United  States.  Mrs.  Julia 
Ward  Howe  long  an  advocate  of  increased  political  rights  for 
women  presents  the  argument  in  favor  of  a  wider  suffrage  as 
follows. 

The  question  of  suffrage  for  women  has  passed  out  of  the 
academic  stage,  and  has  become  a  matter  of  practical  observation 
and  experience  in  an  ever  growing  number  of  States  and  coun- 
tries. Experience  has  shattered,  like  a  house  of  cards,  all  the 
old  predictions  that  it  would  destroy  the  home,  subvert,  the  foun- 
dations of  society,  and  have  a  ruinous  influence  both  on  womanly 
delicacy  and  on  public  affairs.  During  many  years  the  oppo- 
nents of  woman  suffrage  have  been  diligently  gathering  all  the 
adverse  testimony  that  they  could  find.  So  far  as  appears  by 
their  published  literature,  they  have  not  found,  in  all  our  en- 
franchised States  put  together,  a  dozen  respectable  men,  resi- 
dents of  those  States,  who  assert  over  their  own  names  and  ad- 
dresses that  it  has  had  any  ill  effects.  A  few  say  that  it  has  done 
no  good,  and  call  it  a  failure  on  that  ground.  But  the  mass  of 
testimony  on  the  other  side  is  overwhelming. 

The  fundamental  argument  for  woman  suffrage,  of  course,  is 
its  justice ;  and  this  would  be  enough  were  there  no  other.  But 
a  powerful  argument  can  also  be  made  for  it  from  the  standpoint 
of  expediency.  It  has  now  been  proved  to  demonstration,  not 
only  that  woman  suffrage  has  no  bad  results,  but  that  it  has  cer- 
tain definite  good  results. 

iRowe,  Julia  Ward,  "The  Case  for  Woman  Suffrage."  Outlook, 
April  3,  1909;  pp.  780-784. 


The  Ballot  233 

1.  It  gives  women  a  position  of  increased  dignity  and  in- 
fluence.  .  . 

Miss  Margaret  Long,  daughter  of  the  ex-Secretary  of  the 
Navy,  who  has  resided  for  years  in  Denver,  has  written :  "It 
seems  impossible  to  me  that  any  one  can  live  in  Colorado  long 
enough  to  get  into  touch  with  the  life  here,  and  not  realize  that 
women  count  for  more  in  all  the  affairs  of  this  State  than  they 
do  where  they  have  not  the  power  that  the  suffrage  gives.  More 
attention  is  paid  to  their  wishes,  and  much  greater  weight  given 
to  their  opinions  and  judgment.  .  ." 

2.  It  leads  to  improvements  in  the  laws.    No  one  can  speak 
more  fitly  of  this  than  Judge  Lindsey,  of  the  Denver  Juvenile 
Court.    He  writes:   "We  have  in  Colorado  the  most  advanced 
laws  of  any  State  in  the  Union  for  the  care  and  protection  of  the 
home  and  the  children,  the  very  foundation  of  the  Republic. 
We  owe  this  more  to  woman  suffrage  than  to  any  one  cause.     It 
does  not  take  any  mother  from  her  home  duties  to  spend  ten 
minutes  in  going  to  the  polls,  casting  her  vote,  and  returning  to 
the  bosom  of  her  home ;  but  during  those  ten  minutes  she  wields 
a  power  which  is  doing  more  to  protect  that  home,  and  all  other 
homes,  than  any  other  power  or  influence  in  Colorado.  .  ." 

3.  Women  can  bring  their  influence  to  bear  on  legislation 
more  quickly  and  with  less  labor  by  the  direct  method  than  by 
the  indirect.     In  Massachusetts  the  suffragists  worked  for  fifty- 
five  years  before  they  succeeded  in  getting  a  law  making  mothers 
equal  guardians  of  their  minor  children  with  the  fathers.     After 
half  a  century  of  effort  by  indirect  influence,  only  twelve  out  of 
our  forty-six  States  have  taken  similar  action.     In  Colorado, 
when  the  women  were  enfranchised,  the  very  next  Legislature 
passed  such  a  bill. 

4.  Equal  suffrage  often  leads  to  the  defeat  of  bad  candidates. 
This  is  conceded  by  Mr.  A.  Lawrence  Lewis,  whose  article  in 
the  Outlook  against  woman  suffrage  in  Colorado  has  been  re- 
printed by  the  anti-suffragists  as  a  tract.     He  says : 

"Since  the  extension  of  the  franchise  to  women,  political 


234  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

parties  have  learned  the  inadvisability  of  nominating  for  public 
offices  drunkards,  notorious  libertines,  gamblers,  retail  liquor 
dealers,  and  men  who  engage  in  similar  discredited  occupations, 
because  the  women  almost  always  vote  them  down."  During 
the  fifteen  years  since  equal  suffrage  was  granted  no  saloon- 
keeper has  been  elected  to  the  Board  of  Aldermen  in  Denver. 
Before  that  it  was  very  common.  I  quote  again  from  Governor 
Shafroth,  of  Colorado :  "  Women's  presence  in  politics  has  in- 
troduced an  independent  element  which  compels  better  nomina- 
tions. .  ." 

5.  Equal  suffrage  broadens  women's  minds,  and  leads  them 
to  take  a  more  intelligent  interest  in  public  affairs.     President 
Slocum,  of  Colorado  College,  Enos  A.  Mills,  the  forestry  expert, 
Mrs.  Decker,  and  many  others  bear  witness  to  this.     The  Hon. 
W.  E.  Mullen,  Attorney- General  of  Wyoming,  who  went  there 
opposed  to  woman  suffrage  and  has  been  converted,  writes :   "It 
stimulates  interest  and  study,  on  the  part  of  women,  in  public 
affairs.     Questions  of  public  interest  are  discussed  in  the  home. 
As  the  mother,  sister,  or  teacher  of  young  boys,  the  influence  of 
woman  is  very  great.    The  more  she  knows  about  the  obliga- 
tions of  citizenship,  the  more  she  is  able  to  teach  the  boys."    A 
leading  bookseller  of  Denver  says  he  sold  more  books  on  political 
economy  in  the  first  eight  months  after  women  were  given  the 
ballot  than  he  had  sold  in  fifteen  years  before. 

6.  It  makes  elections  and  political  meetings  more  orderly. 
The  Hon.  John  W.  Kingman,  of  the  Wyoming  Supreme  Court, 
says :  "In  caucus  discussions  the  presence  of  a  few  ladies  is  worth 
a  whole  squad  of  police." 

7.  It  makes  it  easier  to  secure  liberal  appropriations  for  edu- 
cational and  humanitarian  purposes.     In  Colorado  the  schools 
are  not  scrimped  for  money,  as  they  are  in  the  older  and  richer 
States.     So  say  Mrs.  Grenfell,  General  Irving  Hale,  and  others. 

8.  It  opens  to  women  important  positions  now  closed  to 
them  because   they   are   not   electors.     Throughout   England, 
Scotland,  Ireland,  and  a  considerable  part  of  Europe  a  host  of 


The  Ballot  235 

women  are  rendering  admirable  service  to  the  community  in 
offices  from  which  women  in  America  are  still  debarred. 

9.  It  increases  the  number  of  women  chosen  to  such  offices 
as  are  already  open  to  them.     Thus,  in  Colorado  women  were 
eligible  as  county  superintendents  of  schools  before  their  en- 
franchisement ;  but  when  they  obtained  the  ballot  the  number 
of  women  elected  to  those  positions  showed  an  immediate  and 
large  increase. 

10.  It  raises  the  average  of  political  honesty  among  the 
voters.     Judge  Lindsey  says:    "Ninety-nine  per  cent  of  our 
election  frauds  are  committed  by  men." 

11.  It  tends  to  modify  a  too  exclusively  commercial  view  of 
public  affairs.     G.  W.  Russell,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Gov- 
ernors of  Canterbury  College,  New  Zealand,  writes:   " Prior  to 
women's  franchise  the  distinctive  feature  of  our  politics  was 
finance.    Legislative  proposals  were  regarded  almost  entirely 
from  the  point  of  view  of  (i)  What  would  they  cost?  and  (2) 
What  would  be  their  effect  from  a  commercial  standpoint  ?    The 
woman's  view  is  not  pounds  nor  pence,  but  her  home,  her  family. 
In  order  to  win  her  vote,  the  politicians  had  to  look  at  public 
matters  from  her  point  of  view.     Her  ideal  was  not  merely  money 
but  happy  homes  and  a  fair  chance  in  life  for  her  husband,  her 
intended  husband,  and  her  present  or  prospective  family." 

12.  Last,  but  not  least,  it  binds  the  family  more  closely 
together.     I  say  this  with  emphasis,  though  it  is  in  direct  op- 
position to  an  argument  much  brought  forward  by  the  opponents 
of  woman  suffrage.     Let  us  give  ear  to  words  that  are  written, 
like  the  last,  from  a  region  where  equal  suffrage  has  been  tried 
and  proved. 

The  Hon.  Hugh  Lusk,  ex-member  of  the  New  Zealand  Parlia- 
ment, says :  "We  find  that  equal  suffrage  is  the  greatest  family 
bond  and  tie,  the  greatest  strengthener  of  family  life.  It  seemed 
odd  at  first  to  find  half  the  benches  at  a  political  meeting  occu- 
pied by  ladies ;  but  when  men  have  got  accustomed  to  it  they 
do  not  like  the  other  thing.  When  they  found  that  they  could 


2j  6  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

take  their  wives  and  daughters  to  these  meetings,  and  afterwards 
go  home  with  them  and  talk  it  over,  it  was  often  the  beginning 
of  a  new  life  for  the  family  —  a  life  of  ideas  and  interests  in  com- 
mon and  of  a  unison  of  thought.  .  ." 

7.    AN  ARGUMENT  AGAINST  WOMAN   SUFFRAGE1 

Even  among  those  who  would  have  their  political  rights 
extended  by  the  grant  of  suffrage  to  women  there  is  difference 
of  opinion  as  to  whether  the  move  would  be  desirable.  It  is 
contended  that  the  demand  is  neither  logically  well  founded  nor 
counselled  by  the  results  in  those  states  which  have  adopted  the 
proposed  change. 

The  question  of  woman  suffrage  can  no  longer  be  treated  with 
indifference  —  it  has  already  become  a  practical  question.  If 
women  are  to  assume  the  duty  of  suffrage,  they  must  either  add 
it  to  their  other  duties  or  lay  aside  other  duties  to  take  up  this 
new  duty.  Would  either  alternative  be  just  to  the  women  them- 
selves and  the  community  at  large  ?  It  is  for  us  to  decide.  In- 
difference is  practically  an  influence  in  favor  of  the  movement ; 
we  should  seriously,  in  the  light  of  a  sacred  duty,  consider  what 
the  issue  portends  for  ourselves  and  our  fellow-beings. 

"Rights"  is  a  word  of  much  sound,  but  little  meaning  —  since 
everybody's  rights  stop  where  another's  commence,  if  there  be  a 
conflict  between  them.  We  are  to  consider  a  question  of  rights, 
woman's  rights,  the  suffragists  call  it,  but  let  us  look  into  it  and 
we  see  a  threefold  aspect :  the  rights  demanded  by  the  women 
who  advocate  suffrage ;  the  rights  of  those  women  who  oppose 
the  movement ;  the  rights  of  the  community  at  large,  the  Com- 
monwealth, the  nation. 

We  are  to  determine  whether  the  claim  of  the  first  class  to  a 
natural,  inherent  right  to  vote,  and  its  demand  to  exercise  that 

1  M'Intire,  Mary  A.  J.,  Of  What  Benefit  to  Women?  Pamphlet  printed 
by  the  Massachusetts  Association  Opposed  to  Extensions  of  Woman  Suffrage 
(excerpt). 


The  Ballot  237 

right,  are :  first,  just ;  second,  expedient ;  that  is,  not  in  con- 
flict, but  in  harmony,  with  the  rights  of  the  others.  .  .  As 
to  the  justice  of  their  claim  to  an  inherent,  natural  right  of  which 
they  are  deprived,  we  answer  that  the  right  of  suffrage  is  not 
inherent  or  inalienable.  In  all  political  history  there  is  not  one 
phrase  which  could  be  construed  into  meaning  that  men  have 
the  right  of  suffrage  because  they  are  human  beings.  Society 
does  not  exist  by  the  consent  of  those  who  enter  it.  Our  govern- 
ment was  established  long  before  the  present  generation  existed ; 
so  the  consent  of  the  governed  must  be  taken  for  granted  (except 
as  changes  are  made  by  constitutional  methods)  until  a  rebellion 
arises. 

A  government  exists  to  secure  the  safety  and  best  welfare  of 
all  who  look  to  it  for  protection.  The  assumption  that  suffrage 
is  a  natural  right  is  anti-republican,  since  the  very  essence  of 
republicanism  is  that  power  is  a  trust  to  be  exercised  for  the 
common  weal,  and  is  forfeited  when  not  so  exercised,  or  when 
exercised  for  private  or  personal  ends.  To  deny  this  is  to  imply 
that  our  government  is  a  pure,  unmitigated  democracy,  which 
may  be  interpreted  in  two  ways  —  either  as  tantamount  to  no 
government,  or  as  the  absolute  despotism  of  the  ruling  majority 
in  all  matters.  This  is  not  American  republicanism  certainly, 
since  republicanism  has  always  aimed  to  restrain  the  absolute 
power  of  majorities  and  protect  minorities  by  constitutional 
provisions. 

Suffrage  cannot  be  the  right  of  the  individual,  because  it  does 
not  exist  for  the  benefit  of  the  individual,  but  for  the  benefit  of 
the  state  itself.  "Unless  a  doctrine  is  susceptible  of  being  given 
practical  effect,  it  must  be  utterly  without  substance"  (Cooley's 
Constitutional  Law) ;  and  this  doctrine  of  inherent  right  cannot 
be  given  practical  effect,  since  this  would  imply  that  minors, 
insane,  idiots,  Indians,  and  Chinese  (now  wholly  or  partially 
restrained)  would  have  a  right  to  exercise  the  franchise.  A  gift 
from  nature  must  be  absolute,  and  not  contingent  upon  the 
state  to  prescribe  qualifications,  the  possession  of  which  shall  be 


238  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  test  of  right  of  enjoyment ;  and  no  restrictions  of  age  or  edu- 
cation could  be  put  upon  it,  such  as  now  exist.  Liberty  itself 
must  come  from  law,  and  cannot,  in  any  institutional  sense, 
come  from  nature.  Rights,  in  a  legal  sense,  are  born  of  re- 
straints, by  which  every  one  may  be  protected  in  this  enjoy- 
ment within  prescribed  limits.  In  prescribing  limitations  the 
framers  of  the  constitution  showed  that  they  did  not  consider 
suffrage  an  inherent  right.  The  article  of  the  bill  of  rights 
which  refers  to  inalienable  rights  has  nothing  whatever  to  say 
about  suffrage. 

The  suffragists  claim  that  women  are  taxed  without  represen- 
tation. Those  advancing  this  argument  exhibit  their  entire  lack 
of  understanding  of  the  theories  of  taxation  and  suffrage,  and 
prove  that  they,  at  least,  are  not  yet  ready  to  enter  intelligently 
into  politics.  .  . 

The  duty  of  voting  is  in  no  sense  dependent  —  in  this  state 
at  least  —  upon  the  fact  that  the  voter  pays  taxes  or  owns  prop- 
erty. A  man  who  has  no  property  has  the  same  voice  in  voting 
as  a  millionaire !  Property  of  a  town,  city,  or  state  is  justly 
liable  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  government  which  protects 
such  property,  and  thus  increases  and  preserves  its  value.  The 
only  question  the  law  asks  is:  "Is  there  property?"  If  so,  it 
imposes  a  tax.  The  laws  of  taxation  are  general,  and  not  partic- 
ular, taxation  being  simply  a  compensation  to  the  government 
for  protection  of  property,  that  such  property  may  have  value. 
Woman's  property  receives  exactly  the  same  protection  as  man's, 
and  she  benefits  as  much  thereby ;  there  is  therefore  no  injustice 
to  her. 

Minors  are  taxed  without  being  able  to  vote,  and  there  are 
more  minors  than  voters.  Men  between  eighteen  and  twenty- 
one  could  quite  as  justly  as  women  consider  themselves  wronged, 
for  they  are  by  a  large  majority  capable  of  voting  intelligently ; 
so  also  could  those  who  are  taxed  upon  property  placed  where 
they  cannot  vote.  Women  enjoy  all  the  rights  of  citizens,  pro- 
tection of  property,  use  of  public  institutions,  roads,  gas,  postal 


The  Ballot  239 

facilities,  etc.  A  vote  would  not  protect  her  property,  since  two 
women  with  no  property  interests  could  more  than  annul  her 
vote  by  theirs.  There  is  not  a  single  interest  of  women  which 
is  not  shared  by  men.  What  is  good  for  men  —  what  protects 
their  interests  also  protects  women's.  We  may  look  to  men  to 
further  what  in  their  judgment  seem  the  best  interests  of  life  and 
property,  and  in  doing  this  they  protect  both  man's  and  woman's 
interests  because  they  are  inseparable. 

Since  women  have  not  —  for  men  have  not  — any  natural 
right  to  vote,  and  cannot  claim  it  on  the  ground  of  taxation  with- 
out representation,  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  they  can  de- 
mand it  on  the  ground  of  expediency.  The  pointing  out  of  bene- 
fits always  rests  with  those  who  demand  a  radical  change  in  a 
system  of  government;  not  pointing  out  only,  but  proving. 
Will  the  franchise  extended  to  women  —  first,  benefit  the  whole 
community?  second,  gain  definite  benefits  for  women,  which 
cannot  be  obtained  in  the  existing  order  of  things? 

The  remonstrants  to  woman's  suffrage  cannot  find  stated  in  all 
the  suffragists'  arguments  one  definite,  certain  benefit  to  result 
to  either  state  or  woman.  On  what  grounds  of  expedience  do 
the  suffragists  demand  the  ballot?  First,  that  society  would 
gain,  because  woman  would  reform  politics.  The  cause  of  tem- 
perance would  be  promoted  by  their  vote.  Woman's  voice 
would  abolish  war.  Second,  that  women  would  gain,  since  the 
ballot  would  be  to  them  an  educational  factor.  The  problem  of 
woman's  wages  would  be  solved. 

Would  women  reform  politics  ?  Let  us  see  !  In  this  country 
it  is  not  a  question,  as  it  is  in  England,  of  the  relatively  intelli- 
gent and  responsible  women  being  allowed  a  share  in  the  govern- 
ment. England  restricts  the  use  of  the  ballot  (by  women)  in 
municipal  affairs  to  those  who  pay  rates  and  taxes  in  their  own 
names.  In  our  country  where  manhood  suffrage  exists  it  fol- 
lows that  if  suffrage  belongs  to  women  at  all,  it  belongs  to  all ; 
suffrage  must  be  given  to  all  women  or  none,  and  such  is  the  final 
proposition  of  the  suffragists.  If  the  franchise  were  granted  to 


240  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

women  in  America,  all  women  of  legal  age,  sound  mind,  and  not 
disfranchised  for  special  causes  (now  applying  to  men)  could 
vote;  not  only  the  intelligent  and  those  unburdened  by  home 
and  business  duties,  but  all  women  without  respect  to  race,  char- 
acter, or  intelligence. 

We  must  not  overlook  or  leave  out  the  densely  ignorant,  the 
supinely  indifferent,  the  trivial,  the  "occupied"  women  —  out  and 
out  bad  women  (60,000  in  New  York  City  alone).  The  suffragists 
say,  "Yes,  that  is  true  also  of  man ; "  but  it  is  surely  evident  that 
existing  evils  should  not  be  added  to  simply  because  they  exist, 
or  that  two  unintelligent,  bought,  or  corrupt  votes  are  worse 
than  one  —  on  the  simple  ground  of  unnecessary  outlay  of  means 
and  energy,  if  nothing  else.  If  the  great  mass  of  ignorant  wo- 
men's votes  are  added  to  the  great  mass  of  ignorant  men's  votes, 
there  will  be  constant  unwise  demands  for  work,  money,  bread, 
leisure,  in  short,  "all  kinds  of  laws  to  favor  all  kinds  of  persons." 
Colonel  Higginson  (who  makes  no  positive  claims  for  woman 
suffrage,  save  on  the  ground  of  natural  right)  acknowledges  that 
"  the  ground  taken  that  woman  as  woman  would  be  sure  to  act 
on  a  higher  plane  than  man  as  man  is  now  urged  less  than  for- 
merly, the  very  mistakes  and  excesses  of  the  agitation  itself  hav- 
ing partially  disproved  it ;"  and  again  —  "  while  the  sympathies 
of  women  are  wholly  on  the  side  of  right,  it  is  by  no  means  safe 
to  assume  that  their  mode  of  enforcing  that  sentiment  will  be 
equally  judicious." 

As  for  temperance  —  there  must  be  taken  into  consideration 
not  only  its  advocates,  and  on  the  other  hand  those  women  who 
favor  license  through  depravity  (the  most  difficult  class  to  deal 
with,  Me  kitchen  bar-rooms  in  no-license  cities),  but  the  count- 
less number  of  foreign-born  women  brought  up  where  liquors  are 
used,  and  not  abused,  who  would  feel  themselves  cramped  in 
their  liberties  under  no-license  law. 

"Woman's  voice  would  abolish  war."  The  Civil  War  was 
stimulated  and  encouraged  by  women  in  the  north ;  and  it  is 
generally  conceded  that  but  for  the  women  of  the  south  it  would 


The  Ballot  241 

have  sooner  ended.  A  suffragist  is  responsible  for  the  statement 
that  a  mayor  of  a  leading  southern  city  lays  the  survival  of  duel- 
ling anywhere  in  the  south  to  the  sustaining  public  sentiment  of 
women.  I  cannot  better  sum  up  the  illusory  nature  of  the 
benefits  proposed  by  the  suffragists  than  in  again  quoting  from 
Colonel  Higginson.  In  an  article  devoted  to  "  Too  much 
Prediction,"  he  says :  "I  am  persuaded  that  at  present  we 
indulge  in  too  many  bold  anticipations  ! " 

We  come  to  the  question  of  the  gain  to  woman  personally. 
Is  there  anything  to  be  gained  which  cannot  be  brought  about 
with  the  existing  franchise?  The  suffragists  say:  i.  Women 
will  be  educated  by  the  ballot.  2.  The  problem  of  woman's 
wages  will  be  solved.  In  regard  to  their  first  claim  we  need  only 
ask,  Has  the  ballot  proved  of  much  educational  value  to  men ; 
then  what  are  the  probabilities  as  regards  women  ? 

The  problem  of  woman's  wages !  The  ballot  could  not  help 
the  working  girl  in  the  way  the  suffragists  claim,  since  legislation 
affects  the  business  of  the  country  only  in  a  general  way,  help- 
ing or  hurting  all  the  workers  alike  in  any  special  industry.  The 
question  of  wages  is  one  of  supply  and  demand  simply  !  So  the 
general  wages  of  women  will  always  depend  greatly  on  the 
amount  of  skill  acquired  by  the  mass  of  them.  What  especially 
affects  woman's  wages  is  the  temporary  character  of  her  work  ! 
The  average  age  of  working  women  is  twenty-two  years,  as  de- 
termined by  government  investigation.  You  see  what  this 
means  —  that  the  ranks  are  constantly  being  filled  up  with  raw, 
untrained  girls,  while  those  who  have  attained  to  some  degree  of 
skill  are  constantly  dropping  out. 

The  natural  expectation  of  every  normal  girl  should  be  that 
sooner  or  later  she  will  marry  and  leave  her  work;  therefore, 
there  is  not  that  incentive  that  men  have  to  become  highly  skill- 
ful ;  and  the  character  of  her  work  is,  consequently,  not  so  high 
generally  speaking,  as  men's,  lacking  as  it  does,  two  factors, 
time  and  incentive,  to  develop  great  skill.  Then,  since  the  ma- 
jority of  women  take  up  work  with  the  intention  —  conscious 


242  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

or  unconscious  —  of  devoting  only  a  part  of  their  lives  to  it,  they 
naturally  gravitate  to  such  work  as  can  be  most  easily  made  a 
temporary  occupation,  and  competition  comes  in  to  help  com- 
plicate the  wage  question.  .  . 

We  have  left  one  argument  for  granting  woman  the  suffrage; 
namely,  that  a  majority  of  women  not  wishing  to  vote  should 
not  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  depriving  a  minority  of  an  inborn 
right.  We  have  summed  up  the  other  arguments  for  the  fran- 
chise and  shown  what  is  to  be  said  in  their  refutation ;  but  this 
last  argument,  it  seems  to  me,  contains  the  gist  of  the  whole 
question  that  is,  wherein  the  demands  of  the  suffragists  and  the 
anti-suffragists  clash.  We  have  shown  their  error  in  claiming 
the  franchise  as  an  inherent  right,  but  even  were  we  to  grant  that 
such  a  right  existed,  it  would  still  be  perfectly  within  the  power 
of  the  state  to  deprive  women  of  this  right,  if  by  granting  it  the 
general  good  would  be  imperiled.  We  know  that  the  state  holds 
authority  to  deprive  citizens  of  the  right  of  property,  of  liberty, 
of  life  itself,  if  the  common  weal  demand  it.  The  family  is  the 
safeguard  of  the  state,  and  the  granting  of  the  suffrage  to  women 
tends  to  weaken  this  mainstay  of  the  nation  by  bringing  into  it 
elements  of  discord  and  disunion ;  therefore  the  state  would  be 
more  than  justified  in  denying  women  even  an  inherent  right 
which  might  prove  thus  disastrous. 

To  the  rest  of  the  argument  we  answer  that  a  majority  of  wo- 
men believe  that  their  inherent  rights  and  privileges  would  suffer 
if  the  duty  of  voting  were  imposed  upon  them,  for  the  following 
reasons:  because  suffrage  involves  office-holding,  which  is  in- 
consistent with  the  duties  of  most  women ;  because  they  feel 
that  their  obvious  duties  and  trusts  —  as  sacred  as  any  on  earth 
—  already  demand  their  best  efforts ;  because  the  duties  cannot 
be  relegated  to  others;  because  political  equality  will  deprive 
woman  of  special  privileges  hitherto  accorded  to  her  by  law; 
because  they  hold  that  the  suffrage  would  lessen  rather  than  in- 
crease their  influence  for  good. 

Suffrage  involves  office-holding.    If  women  vote,  they  ought 


The  Ballot  243 

also  to  hold  office,  and  assume  the  working  duties  incident  to 
office.  A  system  which  tends  to  the  dissolution  of  the  home  is 
more  perilous  to  the  general  good  than  any  other  form  of  danger, 
and  office-holding  is,  on  the  face  of  it,  incompatible  with  woman's 
proper  discharge  of  her  duties  as  wife  and  mother.  There  is  too 
little  stress  laid  on  this.  No  theory  of  womanly  life  is  good  for 
anything  which  undertakes  to  leave  out  the  cradle. 

We  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  nature  has  imposed  upon  wo- 
man the  duty  of  bearing  and  rearing  the  race,  and  in  so  doing, 
has  unfitted  her  (for  a  number  of  years  at  least)  for  holding  polit- 
ical office. 

Many  women  there  are,  it  is  true,  who  are  not  wives  and  moth- 
ers and  if  women  vote,  there  will  be  more  of  them.  When  polit- 
ical rewards  are  held  out  as  the  price  of  services  in  public  life, 
many  women  —  and  those  of  the  brightest  —  will  be  tempted 
to  forego  marriage  and  motherhood  for  the  sake  of  winning 
them.  .  . 

Finally  we  oppose  the  suffrage  for  women,  because  we  feel 
that  we  have  more  influence  without  it.  There  is  not  a  single 
subject  in  which  woman  takes  an  intelligent  interest  in  which 
she  cannot  exert  an  influence  in  the  community  proportionate 
to  her  character  and  ability.  Without  the  ballot,  women  have 
obtained  more  than  mere  justice  in  Massachusetts.  The  num- 
ber of  women  who  want  the  ballot  for  itself  is  reduced  to  a  mere 
handful  when  we  take  away  those  who  are  working  for  temper- 
ance or  other  worthy  causes.  How  much  more  would  be  gained 
by  advocating  these  causes  on  their  own  merits  ! 

The  influence  of  woman  standing  apart  from  the  ballot  is 
immeasurable.  Men  look  to  her  then  (knowing  that  she  has  no 
selfish,  political  interest  to  further)  as  the  embodiment  of  all 
that  is  truest  and  noblest.  She  has  influence  with  all  parties 
alike ;  if  a  voter,  she  would  have  only  the  influence  of  her  own 
party,  even  the  woman's  vote  being  divided  against  itself.  We 
believe  that  it  is  of  vital  importance  that  our  sex  should  have  no 
political  ends  to  serve  ! 


244  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

8.  THE  NEGRO'S  RIGHT  TO  VOTE  :  ITS  DENIAL  1 

Due  to  the  fact  that  the  provisions  of  the  constitution 
which  protect  the  negro  in  his  right  to  vote  are  directed  against 
only  state  action,  and  even  then  only  reach  discrimination  on 
account  of  race,  color,  and  previous  condition  of  servitude,  it 
has  been  possible  for  the  southern  states  practically  to  eliminate 
the  influence  of  the  colored  voter  in  elections. 

First,  how  far  is  it  practicable  for  the  white  people  of  any 
State  to  deny  or  abridge  the  right  of  suffrage  of  such  inhabitants 
of  that  state  as  have  negro  blood  in  their  veins  because  they  have 
such  negro  blood  ?  Second,  what  can  the  Federal  Government 
do  to  prevent  discrimination  on  such  ground  ? 

The  first  of  these  questions  may  be  answered  by  saying  that  in 
1900  there  were  in  the  two  States  of  South  Carolina  and  Missis- 
sippi 350,796  adult  male  negroes.  The  aggregate  number  of 
votes  returned  in  both  states  for  the  Roosevelt  and  Fairbanks 
electoral  ticket  was  5443.  At  least  2000  of  these  5443,  and  per- 
haps more,  must  have  been  cast  by  white  men.  It  follows  that 
in  those  states  not  more  than  one  adult  male  negro  out  of  every 
100  voted  for  President.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  it  has  in 
fact  been  possible  for  the  white  inhabitants  of  some  of  the  states, 
for  a  time  at  least,  so  to  abridge  the  right  of  suffrage  on  the 
ground  of  race  and  color  as  to  deny  that  right  substantially  to 
all  negroes. 

In  the  teeth  of  the  provisions  of  the  Federal  Constitution  how 
has  this  result  been  brought  about?  Why  is  it  that  the  dis- 
franchised race  has  not  been  able  successfully  to  appeal  for  pro- 
tection to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Federal  Constitution. 
Answering  generally,  it  may  be  said :  first,  because  the  powers 
of  the  Federal  Government  are  limited ;  and,  second,  because 
Congress  has  not  exercised  those  powers  which  the  Federal 
Government  has. 

1  Rose,  J.  C.,  "  Negro  Suffrage.  "  American  Political  Science  Review,  Vol. 
I,  1906-1907;  p.  17  et  seq. 


The  Ballot  245 

The  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Amendments  both  expressly 
confer  upon  the  Congress  the  power  to  enforce  them  by  appro- 
priate legislation.  The  Supreme  Court  has  held,  and  has  been 
clearly  right  in  holding,  that  the  power  to  enforce  cannot  be  ex- 
tended beyond  that  which  is  to  be  enforced.  Neither  of  those 
amendments  deal  in  any  wise  with  the  action  of  individuals  in 
their  individual  capacity.  They  are  both  prohibitions  upon 
the  states  or  the  United  States.  Beyond  that  they  do  not  go, 
and  Congress  in  enforcing  them  can  do  no  more  than  to  insure 
as  best  it  may  that  the  states  shall  not  in  any  way  or  by  any  in- 
strumentality deny  to  their  colored  citizens  the  equal  protection 
of  the  laws  or  deny  or  abridge  the  right  of  suffrage  on  account  of 
race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

Congress  cannot  provide  for  the  punishment  of  individuals 
who,  having  no  official  position  and  exercising  none  of  the  powers 
of  the  State,  prevent  a  colored  voter  from  voting,  or  deny  to  him 
the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  .  . 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment  does  not  prescribe  qualifications  for 
suffrage.  That  it  leaves  to  the  several  States.  They  may  make 
any  they  see  fit,  provided  they  do  not  deny  or  abridge  the  right 
of  suffrage  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of 
servitude. 

A  much  larger  proportion  of  whites  than  blacks  may  possess 
any  particular  qualification.  That  fact  alone  is  no  argument  at 
all  against  the  right  of  a  State  to  prescribe  it.  The  qualifica- 
tion may  be  one  which  reasonable  people  may  think  desirable, 
irrespective  of  whether  the  State  has  or  has  not  any  negro 
inhabitants  at  all. 

In  South  Carolina  a  simple  educational  qualification  enforced 
with  entire  honesty  and  strict  impartiality  would  disfranchise 
60,000  or  70,000  more  negroes  than  whites.  Under  universal 
manhood  suffrage  there  would  be  a  negro  majority  in  that  State 
of  upward  of  20,000.  If  the  right  to  vote  was  limited  to  those 
adult  males  who  can  both  read  and  write,  there  would  be  a 
white  majority  of  nearly  45,000. 


246  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Connecticut,  in  its  Constitution,  declares  that  no  one  shall 
vote  unless  he  is  able  to  read  any  section  of  the  Constitution 
or  of  the  statutes  of  the  States  in  the  English  language  and 
write  his  name.  What  Connecticut  can  do,  so  can  South 
Carolina.  .  . 

No  man  can  vote  in  Pennsylvania  unless  at  least  one  month  be- 
fore the  election  he  has  paid  his  poll  or  other  tax.  The  amount 
of  the  poll  tax  and  the  time  at  which  it  must  be  paid  each  State 
may  prescribe  for  itself.  If  Alabama  sees  fit  to  fix  it  at  $1.50 
a  year  and  to  require  that  every  voter  must,  six  months  before 
the  day  of  election,  have  paid  all  poll  taxes  assessed  against  him 
for  each  and  every  year  since  1900,  it  can  do  so.  The  payment 
of  such  a  tax  by  other  persons  than  the  voter  may  easily  be  a 
form  of  bribery  and  corruption.  The  State  may,  therefore,  prop- 
erly require  the  voter  to  pay  his  poll  tax  in  person.  Such  re- 
quirements in  Alabama  would  close  the  door  of  the  polling  room 
to  more  blacks  than  whites.  .  . 

All  the  southern  states  which  have  recently  adopted  new  con- 
stitutions make  the  payment  of  a  poll  tax  a  condition  precedent 
to  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  In  none  of  the  states  is 
the  annual  tax  less  than  one  dollar.  In  none  greater  than  two 
dollars. 

North  Carolina  does  not  require  the  payment  of  any  back 
taxes  except  those  for  the  year  preceding  that  in  which  the  voter 
offers  to  vote.  Louisiana  and  Mississippi  provide  that  he  must 
pay  for  the  preceding  two  years,  and  Virginia  for  the  preceding 
three  years.  Alabama  is  content  with  nothing  short  of  the  pay- 
ment of  all  poll  taxes  levied  on  him  since  the  year  1901. 

The  clauses  of  the  South  Carolina  Constitution  on  the  subject 
are  to  my  reading  ambiguous.  They  may  be  construed  either 
as  requiring  the  payment  of  all  poll  taxes  which  have  been  as- 
sessed against  the  voter,  or  only  those  for  the  preceding  year. 
What  construction  they  have  received  in  practice  I  do  not  know. 

In  some  of  these  states  at  least  the  poll  tax  is  apparently  im- 
posed rather  to  discourage  voting  than  to  raise  revenue.  Thus 


The  Ballot  247 

the  jConstitution  of  Alabama  declares  that  no  legal  process  or  any 
fee  or  commission  shall  be  allowed  for  the  collection  of  the  poll 
tax.  Louisiana  says  that  poll  taxes  shall  be  a  lien  only  upon 
assessed  property  and  no  process  shall  issue  to  enforce  the  col- 
lection of  the  same  except  against  assessed  property.  All  the 
states  require  the  payment  of  these  taxes  to  be  made  a  long  time 
before  the  election. 

In  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Virginia  the  payment 
must  be  made  at  least  six  months  before  election  day,  in  Alabama 
and  Mississippi  before  the  first  of  February  preceding  the  elec- 
tion ;  and  in  Louisiana  on  or  before  the  thirty-first  of  the  pre- 
ceding December. 

Any  adult  male  negro  who  has  not  forfeited  his  right  of  suf- 
frage by  conviction  of  crime,  who  has  paid  his  poll  taxes  as  re- 
quired by  law,  and  who  possesses  the  qualifications  of  residence 
required  of  all  other  voters  is  in  theory  at  least  entitled  to  vote 
in  Mississippi  if  he  can  read  the  Constitution  of  that  state ;  in 
Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina,  and  Louisiana  if  he  can 
read  and  write;  in  Alabama  if  he  can  read  and  write  and  has 
been  regularly  engaged  in  some  lawful  employment,  business, 
occupation,  trade,  or  calling  for  the  greater  part  of  the  twelve 
months  preceding  the  time  at  which  he  offers  to  register;  in 
Louisiana  and  South  Carolina  if  he  be  the  owner  of  real  and  per- 
sonal property  assessed  at  $300,  whether  he  can  read  and  write 
or  not ;  and  in  Alabama,  though  he  cannot  read  or  write,  and 
whether  he  has  been  employed  or  not,  if  he  or  his  wife  own  forty 
acres  of  land  on  which  they  live,  or  if  either  he  or  she  have  real 
or  personal  property  of  the  assessed  value  of  $300,  or  more. 

A  negro  Republican  in  any  one  of  those  States  would  very  prob- 
ably reply  that  however  reasonable  the  qualifications  may  seem 
in  theory,  in  practice  there  are  so  many  difficulties  thrown  by 
the  registration  officers  in  the  way  of  the  registration  of  negro 
voters  that  none  except  those  who  have  a  liberal  allowance  of 
time,  patience,  persistence,  intelligence,  and  money  can  succeed 
in  getting  on  the  registration  books.  He  might  refer  to  such  a 


248  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

provision  as  that  of  the  Alabama  Constitution  which  authorizes 
the  register  to  require  the  applicant  to  state  under  oath  the  name 
or  names  of  all  his  employers  for  the  last  five  years,  and  makes 
any  wilfully  false  answer  perjury.  He  might  not  unreasonably 
contend  that  the  purpose  of  such  a  provision  was  to  render  it  al- 
most impossible  for  negro  laborers  safely  to  apply  for  registra- 
tion. This  may  be  true,  but  if  true  it  is  not  relevant  to  the  in- 
quiry whether  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  state  to  prescribe 
the  qualifications  it  has  prescribed.  .  . 

Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  in  every  one  of  the 
six  southern  states  which  have  adopted  new  constitutional  regu- 
lations for  the  suffrage,  those  regulations  have  been  so  framed  or 
administered  that  no  white  man  who  was  a  voter  at  the  time  they 
went  into  effect  has  been  disfranchised  by  them.  Sometimes  the 
white  voters  have  been  protected  by  the  very  terms  of  the  new 
constitutions.  Thus,  Louisiana  and  North  Carolina  declare  that 
all  men  who  were  voters  in  any  state  of  the  Union  before  Janu- 
ary i,  1867,  and  in  Louisiana  the  sons  and  grandsons  of  such 
men,  not  less  than  21  years  of  age  in  1898,  and  in  North  Carolina 
all  lineal  descendants  of  such  men  who  were  or  may  become  voters 
before  1908  shall  remain  for  life  qualified  to  vote  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  they  may  not  possess  either  the  educational  or  the 
property  qualifications,  one  or  the  other  of  which  is  required  of 
all  other  voters. 

Every  one  knows  that  this  so-called  "grandfather  clause" 
was  devised  solely  for  the  purpose  of  exempting  all  white  men 
from  the  necessity  of  showing  that  they  possessed  those  qualifi- 
cations which  were  required  of  all  negroes.  It  is  possible  to 
argue  that  the  ability  to  vote  in  such  manner  as  is  conducive  to 
the  best  interests  of  the  state  may  in  some  rough  and  general 
way  be  hereditary.  This  was  a  contention,  however,  which  was 
made  when  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  was  under  consideration, 
and  the  adoption  of  that  Amendment  decided  it  finally  in  the 
negative. 

If  North  Carolina  and  Louisiana  forms  of  the  "grandfather 


The  Ballot  249 

clause"  shall  come  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  the  right  and  duty  of  that  court  to 
pass  upon  their  validity,  I  personally  believe  that  they  will  be 
held  invalid. 

The  corresponding  clause  in  Virginia  is  more  skillfully  drawn. 
It  authorizes  the  registration  of  every  non-property  owning  illit- 
erate, who  prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  new  Constitution  of  Vir- 
ginia had  served  in  time  of  war  in  the  army  or  the  navy  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  the  Confederate  States,  or  who  is  a  son  of 
any  one  who  did  so  serve.  While  this  qualification  in  Virginia 
is  possessed  by  many  more  white  than  black  men  it  would  in- 
clude an  appreciable  number  of  the  latter.  It  might,  therefore, 
very  possibly  be  held  valid.  .  . 

In  Alabama,  in  addition  to  the  "grandfather  clause"  already 
referred  to,  the  boards  of  registry  were  given  the  opportunity  to 
protect  white  voters  by  a  provision  that  in  addition  to  those 
qualified  under  the  "grandfather  clause"  the  only  persons  who 
should  be  entitled  to  vote  upon  the  adoption  of  the  new  Consti- 
tution were  those  persons  who  were  of  good  character  and  who 
understood  the  duties  and  obligations  of  citizenship  under  a  re- 
publican form  of  government.  On  the  face  of  this  qualification 
what  could  be  fairer  ?  No  one  ought  to  vote  who  is  not  of  good 
character,  and  who  does  not  understand  the  duties  and  obliga- 
tions of  citizenship  under  a  republican  form  of  government. 
How  fortunate  is  the  state  which  can  organize  in  each  county  a 
board  of  registry  capable  of  determining  who  among  their  fel- 
low-citizens are  and  who  are  not  of  good  character,  and  who  do 
and  who  do  not  understand  the  duties  and  obligations  of  citizen- 
ship under  a  republican  form  of  government ! 

We  all  know  why  this  unlimited  discretion  was  given  to  the 
Board  of  Registry  in  Alabama.  Yet  the  constitution  of  Con- 
necticut has  since  1818  required  that  an  elector  in  that  state  shall 
sustain  a  good  moral  character.  For  upward  of  a  century  the 
constitution  of  Vermont  has  declared  that  only  persons  of  quiet 
and  peaceable  behavior  shall  be  admitted  to  be  freemen  in  any 


250  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

town  of  that  state.  It  is  true  that  no  one  has  heard  that  in 
either  Connecticut  or  Vermont  any  one,  except  possibly  some 
utterly  notorious  offender,  has  ever  been  disfranchised  because 
he  was  not  of  good  moral  character,  or  was  not  of  quiet  and  peace- 
able behavior.  There  is  much  reason  to  believe  that  in  Alabama 
a  very  large  number  of  persons  were  unable  to  convince  the  Board 
of  Registry  that  they  were  of  good  character  and  that  they  un- 
derstood the  duties  and  obligations  of  citizenship  under  a  re- 
publican form  of  government,  or  at  all  events  that  they  would 
have  been  unable  to  convince  the  Board  of  Registry  had  they 
thought  it  worth  while  to  try  to  do  so.  On  its  face,  however, 
this  provision  is  not  a  discrimination  on  account  of  race,  color, 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 


IX.  PARTY  PROBLEMS  AND  REMEDIES 

I.    PARTY  INFLUENCE  IN  FEDERAL  APPOINTMENTS  l 

Considerations  of  party  expediency  have  transformed  the  ap- 
pointing power  of  the  President.  Responsibility  for  the  char- 
acter of  the  administration  required  that  the  President  should 
control  the  officers  charged  with  carrying  out  his  policies.  The 
advice  of  the  senate  taken  in  the  rilling  of  offices  was  not  in- 
tended to  control  the  appointments  and  virtually  dictate  them. 
The  growth  of  party  control  has  however  shifted  the  balance  of 
power  in  choosing  appointive  officials  to  the  upper  house. 

As  the  President  is  charged  with  the  whole  Federal  adminis- 
tration, and  responsible  for  its  due  conduct,  he  must  of  course 
be  allowed  to  choose  his  executive  subordinates.  But  as  he 
may  abuse  this  tremendous  power  the  Constitution  associates 
the  Senate  with  him,  requiring  the  "advice  and  consent"  of  that 
body  to  the  appointments  he  makes.  This  confirming  power 
has  become  a  political  factor  of  the  highest  moment.  The 
framers  of  the  Constitution  probably  meant  nothing  more  than 
that  the  Senate  should  check  the  President  by  rejecting  nominees 
who  were  personally  unfit  for  the  post  to  which  he  proposed  to 
appoint  them.  The  Senate  has  always,  except  in  its  struggle 
with  President  Johnson,  left  the  President  free  to  choose  his 
cabinet  ministers.  But  it  early  assumed  the  right  of  rejecting 
a  nominee  to  any  other  office  on  any  ground  which  it  pleased,  as, 
for  instance,  if  it  disapproved  his  political  affiliations,  or  wished 
to  spite  the  President.  Presently  the  senators  from  the  State 
wherein  a  Federal  office  to  which  the  President  had  made  a  nomi- 

1  Bryce,  J.,  The  American  Commonwealth.  Macmillan,  New  York,  1910; 
Vol.  I,  pp.  61-65. 

251 


252  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

nation  lay,  being  the  persons  chiefly  interested  in  the  appoint- 
ment, and  most  entitled  to  be  listened  to  by  the  rest  of  the  Senate 
when  considering  it,  claimed  to  have  a  paramount  voice  in  decid- 
ing whether  the  nomination  should  be  confirmed.  Their  col- 
leagues approving,  they  then  proceeded  to  put  pressure  on  the 
President.  They  insisted  that  before  making  a  nomination  to  an 
office  in  any  State  he  should  consult  the  senators  from  that  State 
who  belonged  to  his  own  party,  and  be  guided  by  their  wishes. 
Such  an  arrangement  benefited  all  senators  alike,  because  each 
obtained  the  right  of  practically  dictating  the  appointments  to 
those  Federal  offices  which  he  most  cared  for,  viz.  those  within 
his  own  State ;  and  each  was  therefore  willing  to  support  his 
colleagues  in  securing  the  same  right  for  themselves  as  regarded 
their  States  respectively.  Of  course  when  a  senator  belonged 
to  the  party  opposed  to  the  President,  he  had  no  claim  to  in- 
terfere, because  places  are  as  a  matter  of  course  given  to  party 
adherents  only.  When  both  senators  belonged  to  the  President's 
party  they  agreed  among  themselves  as  to  the  person  whom  they 
should  require  the  President  to  nominate.  By  this  system, 
which  obtained  the  name  of  the  Courtesy  of  the  Senate,  the 
President  was  practically  enslaved  as  regards  appointments, 
because  his  refusal  to  be  guided  by  the  senator  or  senators  within 
whose  State  the  office  lay  exposed  him  to  have  his  nomination 
rejected.  The  senators,  on  the  other  hand,  obtained  a  mass  of 
patronage  by  means  of  which  they  could  reward  their  partisans, 
control  the  Federal  civil  servants  of  their  State,  and  build  up  a 
faction  devoted  to  their  interests.  Successive  Presidents  chafed 
under  the  yoke,  and  sometimes  carried  their  nominees  either  by 
making  a  bargain  or  by  fighting  hard  with  the  senators  who 
sought  to  dictate  to  them.  But  it  was  generally  more  prudent 
to  yield,  for  an  offended  senator  could  avenge  a  defeat  by  play- 
ing the  President  a  shrewd  trick  in  some  other  matter ;  and  as 
the  business  of  confirmation  is  transacted  in  secret  session,  in- 
triguers have  little  fear  of  the  public  before  their  eyes.  The 
senators  might,  moreover,  argue  that  they  knew  best  what  would 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  253 

strengthen  the  party  in  their  State,  and  that  the  men  of  their 
choice  were  just  as  likely  to  be  good  as  those  whom  some  private 
friend  suggested  to  the  President.  Thus  the  system  throve  and 
still  thrives,  though  it  received  a  blow  from  the  conflict  in  1881 
between  President  Garfield  and  one  of  the  New  York  Senators, 
Mr.  Roscoe  Conkling.  This  gentleman,  finding  that  Mr.  Garfield 
would  not  nominate  to  a  Federal  office  in  that  state  the  person 
he  proposed,  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  inducing  his  co- 
senator  Mr.  Platt  to  do  the  same.  Both  then  offered  themselves 
for  re-election  by  the  State  Legislature  of  New  York,  expecting 
to  obtain  from  it  an  approval  of  their  action,  and  thereby  to 
cow  the  President.  The  State  Legislature,  however,  in  which  a 
faction  hostile  to  the  two  senators  had  become  powerful,  re- 
jected Mr.  Conkling  and  Mr.  Platt  in  favour  of  other  candidates. 
So  the  victory  remained  with  Mr.  Garfield,  while  the  nation, 
which  had  watched  the  contest  eagerly,  rubbed  its  hands  in  glee 
at  the  unexpected  denouement. 

It  need  hardly  be  added  that  the  "Courtesy  of  the  Senate" 
would  never  have  attained  its  present  strength  but  for  the  growth, 
in  and  since  the  time  of  President  Jackson,  of  the  so-called  Spoils 
System,  whereby  holders  of  Federal  offices  have  been  turned  out 
at  the  accession  of  a  new  President  to  make  way  for  the  aspirants 
whose  services,  past  or  future,  he  is  expected  to  requite  or  secure 
by  the  gift  of  places. 

The  right  of  the  President  to  remove  from  office  has  given  rise 
to  long  controversies  on  which  I  can  only  touch.  In  the  Con- 
stitution there  is  not  a  word  about  removals;  and  very  soon 
after  it  had  come  into  force  the  question  arose  whether,  as  re- 
gards those  offices  for  which  the  confirmation  of  the  Senate  is 
required,  the  President  could  remove  without  its  consent. 
Hamilton  had  argued  in  the  Federalist  (though  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  he  afterwards  changed  his  opinion)  that  the  Presi- 
dent could  not  so  remove,  because  it  was  not  to  be  supposed  that 
the  Constitution  meant  to  give  him  so  immense  and  dangerous 
a  reach  of  power.  Madison  argued  soon  after  the  adoption  of 


254  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  Constitution  that  it  did  permit  him  so  to  remove,  because 
the  head  of  the  executive  must  have  subordinates  whom  he  can 
trust,  and  may  discover  in  those  whom  he  has  appointed  defects 
fatal  to  their  usefulness.  This  was  also  the  view  of  John  Mar- 
shall. When  the  question  came  to  be  settled  in  the  Senate  dur- 
ing the  presidency  of  Washington,  Congress,  influenced  perhaps 
by  respect  for  his  perfect  uprightness,  took  the  Madisonian  view 
and  recognized  the  power  of  removal  as  vested  in  the  President 
alone.  So  matters  stood  till  a  conflict  arose  in  1866  between 
President  Johnson  and  the  Republican  majority  in  both  Houses 
of  Congress.  In  1867  Congress,  fearing  that  the  President 
would  dismiss  a  great  number  of  officials  who  sided  with  it  against 
him,  passed  an  Act,  known  as  the  Tenure  of  Office  Act,  which 
made  the  consent  of  the  Senate  necessary  to  the  removal  of  office- 
holders, even  of  the  President's  (so-called)  cabinet  ministers, 
permitting  him  only  to  suspend  them  from  office  during  the  time 
when  Congress  was  not  sitting.  The  constitutionality  of  this 
Act  has  been  much  doubted,  and  its  policy  is  now  generally  con- 
demned. It  was  a  blow  struck  in  the  heat  of  passion.  When 
General  Grant  became  President  in  1869,  the  Act  was  greatly 
modified,  and  in  1887  it  was  repealed. 

How  dangerous  it  is  to  leave  all  offices  tenable  at  the  mere 
pleasure  of  a  partisan  Executive  using  them  for  party  purposes, 
has  been  shown  by  the  fruits  of  the  Spoils  System.  On  the  other 
hand  a  President  ought  to  be  free  to  choose  his  chief  advisers 
and  ministers,  and  even  in  the  lower  ranks  of  the  civil  service 
it  is  hard  to  secure  efficiency  if  a  specific  cause,  such  as  could  be 
proved  to  a  jury,  must  be  assigned  for  dismissal. 

The  Constitution  permits  Congress  to  vest  in  the  Courts  of 
Law  or  in  "the  heads  of  departments"  the  right  of  appointing 
to  "inferior  offices."  This  provision  has  been  used  to  remove 
many  posts  from  the  nomination  of  the  President,  and  by  the 
Civil  Service  Reform  Act  of  1883  competitive  examinations  were 
instituted  for  about  34,000.  Of  the  now  enormous  number  of 
posts  —  there  were,  in  1909,  367,794  officers  and  employees  of 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  255 

the  executive  civil  service  —  nearly  two-thirds  were  in  that  year 
subject  to  such  examinations.  A  great  number,  however,  in- 
cluding many  postmasterships  and  many  places  under  the 
Treasury,  remain  in  the  gift  of  the  President;  while  even  as 
regards  those  which  lie  with  his  ministers,  he  may  be  invoked  if 
disputes  arise  between  the  minister  and  politicians  pressing  the 
claims  of  their  respective  friends.  The  business  of  nominating 
is  in  ordinary  times  so  engrossing  as  to  leave  the  chief  magis- 
trate of  the  nation  little  time  for  his  other  functions. 

Artemus  Ward's  description  of  Abraham  Lincoln  swept  along 
from  room  to  room  in  the  White  House  by  a  rising  tide  of  office 
seekers  is  hardly  an  exaggeration.  From  the  4th  of  March, 
when  Mr.  Garfield  came  into  power,  till  he  was  shot  in  the  July 
following,  he  was  engaged  almost  incessantly  in  questions  of 
patronage.  Yet  the  President's  individual  judgment  has  little 
scope.  He  must  reckon  with  the  Senate;  he  must  requite  the 
supporters  of  the  men  to  whom  he  owes  his  election :  he  must  so 
distribute  places  all  over  the  country  as  to  keep  the  local  wire- 
pullers in  good  humour,  and  generally  strengthen  the  party  by 
"doing  something"  for  those  who  have  worked  or  will  work  for 
it.  Although  the  minor  posts  are  practically  left  to  the  nomina- 
tion of  the  senators  or  congressmen  from  the  State  or  district, 
conflicting  claims  give  infinite  trouble,  and  the  more  lucrative 
offices  are  numerous  enough  to  make  the  task  of  selection  labori- 
ous as  well  as  thankless  and  disagreeable.  In  every  country 
statesmen  find  the  dispensing  of  patronage  the  most  disagreeable 
part  of  their  work;  and  the  more  conscientious  they  are,  the 
more  does  it  worry  them.  No  one  has  more  to  gain  from  a 
thorough  scheme  of  civil  service  reform  than  the  President.  The 
present  system  throws  work  on  him  unworthy  of  a  fine  intellect, 
and  for  which  a  man  of  fine  intellect  may  be  ill  qualified.  On 
the  other  hand  the  President's  patronage  is,  in  the  hands  of  a 
skilful  intriguer,  an  engine  of  far-spreading  potency.  By  it  he 
can  oblige  a  vast  number  of  persons,  can  bind  their  interests  to 
his  own,  can  fill  important  places  with  the  men  of  his  choice. 


256  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

The  authority  he  has  over  the  party  in  Congress,  and  therefore 
over  the  course  of  legislation,  the  influence  he  exerts  on  his  party 
in  the  several  States,  and  therefore  over  the  selection  of  candi- 
dates for  Congress,  is  strengthened  by  his  patronage.  Unhap- 
pily, the  more  his  patronage  is  used  for  these  purposes,  the  more 
it  is  apt  to  be  diverted  from  the  aim  of  providing  the  country 
with  the  best  officials. 

2.    MACHINE  POLITICS  IN  THE  LINCOLN  ADMINISTRATION  l 

Party  control  of  appointments,  made  possible  by  party  con- 
trol of  the  senate,  became  by  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury so  strong  an  influence  that  not  even  President  Lincoln 
could  resist  its  force.  He  felt  that  some  of  the  appointments 
he  was  constrained  to  make  contradicted  the  principles  for 
which  he  had  stood  through  all  his  life. 

"Machine  Politics"  on  a  large  scale  began  with  the  opening 
of  the  Civil  War.  Prior  to  that  time,  the  operations  of  all  our 
governments,  national,  state,  and  local,  involved  the  handling 
of  comparatively  small  amounts  of  money.  Then,  for  the  first 
time,  did  the  operations  of  the  national  government  furnish  a 
field  for  fraud  and  corruption  on  a  large  scale.  Then,  for  the 
first  time,  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  we  have  the 
evidence  of  the  omnipotence  of  the  election  machine. 

In  connection  with  the  facts  now  to  be  related,  we  must  con- 
tinually bear  in  mind  that  Mr.  Lincoln's  purity  of  purpose  — 
his  personal  integrity  —  and  his  sincerity  and  earnestness  in 
using  the  powers  of  his  office  for  what  he  deemed  the  highest 
public  interests  are  universally  conceded.  Consequently,  we 
are  compelled  to  conclude,  that  if  he  was  unable  to  resist  the 
power  of  the  election  machine,  that  power  is  practically  irre- 
sistible. 

Immediately  after  Mr.  Lincoln's  election  began  the  inevitable 

1  Stickney,  A.,  Organized  Democracy.  Houghton,  New  York,  1906;  p. 
118  et  seq. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  257 

division  of  the  "spoils,"  which  has  been,  for  well-nigh  a  century, 
the  invariable  sequel  of  the  election  of  a  new  President. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  nomination,  as  is  well  known,  was  procured  by 
a  political  barter.  It  is  a  well-authenticated  fact,  that  a  bar- 
gain had  been  made  by  Mr.  Lincoln's  political  friends,  at  the 
Chicago  convention  which  nominated  him,  that  the  vote  of  the 
Pennsylvania  delegation  in  that  convention  should  be  paid  for 
—  by  the  appointment  of  Simon  Cameron  to  a  seat  in  the  Cab- 
inet. Whether  or  not  Mr.  Lincoln  knew  and  approved  the  bar- 
gain before  his  election,  has  been  questioned.  But  it  is  the  his- 
toric fact,  that  he  carried  out  the  bargain  afterwards,  with  full 
knowledge  of  the  facts,  by  making  Mr.  Cameron  his  Secretary 
of  War. 

Mr.  Lincoln  did  this  in  opposition  to  the  remonstrances  of  a 
number  of  the  most  reputable  men  in  his  own  party.  Those 
men  represented  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  the  character  and  repu- 
tation of  Mr.  Cameron  were  so  bad,  that  no  administration  could 
endure  the  disgrace  of  such  appointment.  .  . 

Mr.  Lincoln's  own  opinion  of  Mr.  Cameron  was  so  bad  as  to 
make  him  think  that  the  mere  appointment  of  Mr.  Cameron 
by  him  to  a  cabinet  position  would  of  itself  destroy  his  own  great 
reputation  for  honesty.  According  to  his  biographer,  he  said :  — 

All  that  I  am  in  the  world  —  the  Presidency  and  all  else  — 
I  owe  to  that  opinion  of  me  which  the  people  express  when  they 
call  me  Honest  Old  Abe.  Now  what  will  they  think  of  their 
honest  Abe  when  he  appoints  Simon  Cameron  to  be  his  familiar 
adviser  ? 

At  the  time  of  Mr.  Cameron's  appointment,  we  were  at  the 
opening  of  a  great  war,  on  which  depended  the  nation's  existence. 
The  War  Secretaryship  was  the  most  important  office  in  the  na- 
tion. It  demanded  a  man  of  great  ability,  and  of  unquestioned 
integrity.  Success  in  the  war  would  be  largely  a  matter  of 
money.  Upright  and  able  administration  of  the  War  Office  was 
certain  to  be  the  most  important  thing  in  the  entire  admin  is tra- 


258  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

tion.  Nevertheless,  Mr.  Lincoln  gave  the  headship  of  the  War 
Office  to  a  man  who  was  notoriously  and  scandalously  corrupt. 
Of  that  fact  he  was  fully  advised  in  advance.  .  . 

As  already  said,  Mr.  Lincoln's  purity  of  purpose  and  earnest- 
ness of  endeavor  are  conceded  on  all  hands.  We  must  assume, 
that  he  did  everything  in  his  power  to  insure  an  honest  adminis- 
tration of  our  national  affairs.  For  he,  and  every  intelligent 
man,  well  understood  that  success  in  putting  down  the  rebellion 
was  largely  a  question  of  money ;  and  that  it  was  of  vital  neces- 
sity that  the  strictest  economy  should  be  used  in  the  manage- 
ment of  our  Army  and  Navy,  and  of  the  nation's  finances. 

Bearing  all  that  in  mind,  let  us  see  what  were  the  practical 
results  of  his  so-called  "political  appointments." 

The  government 'was  compelled  to  purchase  large  quantities 
of  material  of  all  kinds,  arms  and  supplies  for  the  Army,  and 
vessels  for  the  transport  service  and  the  Navy.  .  . 

The  purchasing  of  vessels  for  the  Navy  Department  at  the 
port  of  New  York  was  taken  from  the  commandant  of  the  navy- 
yard  there,  and  transferred  to  a  man  of  whom  a  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives Committee  say,  that  he  had 

never  had  the  slightest  experience  in  the  new  and  responsible 
duties  which  he  was  called  upon  to  discharge,  either  in  the  naval 
service,  the  building  or  buying  and  selling  of  ships,  or  in  any  pur- 
suit calling  for  a  knowledge  of  their  construction,  capacity,  or 
value,  never  having  spent  an  hour  in  either.  .  . 

Five  thousand  carbines  belonging  to  the  government  were 
sold  to  a  private  individual  for  $3.50  apiece,  and  were  immedi- 
ately repurchased  for  the  government  for  $22  apiece,  making  a 
difference  on  this  one  transaction  of  nearly  $90,000.  One  lot  of 
these  carbines  went  through  this  process  of  sale  and  repurchase 
twice.  They  were  first  sold  by  the  government  at  a  price  merely 
nominal,  and  were  repurchased  at  $15  apiece.  They  were  again 
sold  by  the  government  at  a  price  above  stated,  of  $3.50,  and 
again  repurchased  at  $22,  How  many  other  times  these  arms 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  259 

did  service  under  the  purchase  and  sale  treatment,  or  whether 
they  ever  did  service  in  the  field,  did  not  appear. 

A  certain  contractor  testified  that  he  furnished  supplies  to 
the  government  to  the  amount  of  $800,000,  on  which  he  made  a 
profit  of  over  forty  per  cent.  The  purchases  from  him  were 
made  in  direct  violation  of  law.  .  . 

Two  steamers  were  purchased  by  a  friend  of  high  government 
officials  for  about  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  were  im- 
mediately sold  to  the  government  for  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars.  One  steamer  was  chartered  to  the  government  for  two 
thousand  five  hundred  dollars  a  day ;  and  the  government  paid 
one  hundred  and  thirty-five  thousand  dollars  for  a  period  during 
which  she  lay  at  a  wharf  before  she  was  ever  once  used.  One 
railroad  company  received  for  transportation  in  one  year  from 
the  government  over  three  million  five  hundred  thousand  dol- 
lars, being  an  excess  over  the  company's  entire  earnings  for  the 
previous  year  of  one  million  three  hundred  and  fifty  thousand 
dollars,  or  about  forty  per  cent.  And  the  rates  charged  for  this 
transportation  were  about  thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent 
in  excess  of  the  rates  paid  by  private  individuals.  The  brother- 
in-law  of  the  president  of  this  railroad  company  was  Mr.  Lin- 
coln's Secretary  of  War. 

These  are  merely  single  instances  of  the  way  in  which  the  Peo- 
ple's money  was  wasted  by  the  party  leaders  and  their  political 
supporters.  .  . 

But  political  influence  went  further  than  controlling  the  treas- 
ury and  the  War  and  Navy  departments.  It  controlled  the 
appointment  of  our  generals.  Machine  politicians  aspired  to 
the  glory  of  the  soldier,  for  political  purposes.  They  were  men 
without  either  education  or  experience.  One  of  them  at  least 
had  never  in  his  life  so  much  as  handled  a  battalion  or  a  company 
on  a  parade  ground.  Men  of  this  kind  were  given  generals'  com- 
missions, and  the  command  of  armies ;  and  through  their  igno- 
rance and  incapacity  thousands  of  better  men  than  themselves 
lost  their  lives. 


260  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

In  all  departments,  throughout  the  war,  the  plunder  of  the 
treasury  by  machine  politicians  proceeded  on  true  machine 
principles.  The  people's  offices  were  used,  not  for  the  service 
of  the  people,  but  for  the  service  of  the  election  machine,  to  re- 
ward machine  men  for  machine  work. 

3.    LIMITING    PARTISAN    ACTIVITY    OF     OFFICEHOLDERS.      UNITED 
STATES   CIVIL  SERVICE   COMMISSION,  JULY,    I  QIC  1 

(  The  evil  effect  of  the  "spoils  system"  upon  our  public  life 
has  aroused  men  interested  in  good  government  to  persistent 
effort  to  remove  from  active  party  work  those  who  are  in  gov- 
ernment service.  Public  offices  must  not  be  made  the  forts  of 
the  party  army.  The  rules  limiting  the  evil  of  the  activity  of 
officeholders,  prescribed  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  have 
been  an  important  influence  in  eliminating  abuses. 

I.    Political  Activity 

Activity  of  competitive  employees  and  laborers  forbidden: 
Persons  who  by  the  provisions  of  these  rules  are  in  the  com- 
petitive classified  service,  while  retaining  the  right  to  vote  as 
they  please  and  to  express  privately  their  opinions  on  all  political 
subjects,  shall  take  no  active  part  in  political  management  or  in 
political  campaigns.  (Rule  I,  sec.  i.) 

Temporary  employees  are  held  to  be  within  the  restrictions 
of  the  rule. 

On  May  14,  1908,  the  Navy  Department  issued  the  following 
circular  letter  to  commandants  of  navy-yards  and  naval  stations : 

Laborers  and  mechanics  at  the  yard  or  station  under  your 
command  will  be  subject  to  discharge  for  political  activity  in 
the  same  manner  as  competitive  classified  employees. 

Similar  instructions  have  been  issued  by  other  departments  plac- 
ing the  same  limitations  in  regard  to  political  activity  on  laborers 
in  the  unclassified  service  as  are  applied  to  competitive  employees. 

The  following  forms  of  activity  have  been  held  to  be  forbidden 

1  Pamphlet  published  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  261 

by  this  provision  :•  Service  on  political  committees ;  service  as 
delegates  to  county,  state,  or  district  conventions  of  a  political 
party,  although  it  was  understood  that  the  employees  were  not 
"to  take  or  use  any  political  activity  in  going  to  these  conven- 
tions or  otherwise  violate  the  civil-service  rules";  service  as 
officer  of  a  political  club,  as  chairman  of  a  political  meeting  or 
as  secretary  of  an  antisaloon  league ;  continued  political  activity 
and  leadership ;  activity  at  the  polls  on  election  day ;  the  pub- 
lication or  editing  of  a  newspaper  in  the  interests  of  a  political 
party ;  the  publication  of  political  articles  bearing  on  qualifica- 
tions of  different  candidates ;  the  distribution  of  political  litera- 
ture ;  holding  office  in  a  club  which  takes  active  part  in  political 
campaigns  and  management;  making  speeches  before  political 
meetings  or  political  clubs ;  circulation  of  petitions  having  politi- 
cal object,  of  petitions  proposing  amendments  to  a  municipal 
charter,  of  petitions  favoring  candidates  for  municipal  offices, 
and  of  local-option  petitions ;  service  as  a  commissioner  of  elec- 
tion in  a  community  where  it  was  notorious  that  a  commissioner 
of  election  must  be  an  active  politician ;  accepting  nomination 
for  political  office  with  intention  of  resigning  from  the  competi- 
tive service  if  elected;  recommendation  by  clerks  and  carriers 
of  a  person  to  be  postmaster ;  activity  in  local-option  campaigns ; 
service  as  inspector  of  elections,  ballot  clerk,  ballot  inspector, 
judge  of  election,  member  of  election  board ;  candidacy  for  or 
holding  of  elective  office.  .  . 

Restrictions  on  the  political  activity  of  other  government 
officers : 

On  July  14,  1886,  President  Cleveland  issued  the  following 
instructions,  which  were  published  at  the  time  as  orders  by  the 
heads  of  the  several  departments : 

Officeholders  are  the  agents  of  the  people,  not  their  masters. 
Not  only  is  their  time  and  labor  due  to  the  Government,  but 
they  should  scrupulously  avoid,  in  their  political  action,  as  well 
as  in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duty,  offending,  by  display  of 


262  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elecaons 

obtrusive  partisanship,  their  neighbors  who  Iiave  relations  with 
them  as  public  officials. 

They  should  also  constantly  remember  fiat  their  party  friends, 
from  whom  they  have  received  preferment,  have  not  invested 
them  with  the  power  of  arbitrarily  managing  their  political 
affairs.  They  have  no  right  as  officeholders  to  dictate  the  polit- 
ical action  of  their  party  associates  or  to  throttle  freedom  of 
action  within  party  lines  by  methods  and  practices  which  per- 
vert every  useful  and  justifiable  purpose  of  party  organization. 

The  influence  of  federal  officeholders  should  not  be  felt  in  the 
manipulation  of  political  primary  meetings  and  nominating 
conventions.  The  use  by  these  officials  of  their  positions  to 
compass  their  selection  as  delegates  to  political  conventions  is 
indecent  and  unfair,  and  proper  regard  for  the  proprieties  and 
requirements  of  official  place  will  also  prevent  their  assuming 
the  active  conduct  of  political  campaigns. 

Individual  interest  and  activity  in  political  affairs  are  by  no 
means  condemned.  Officeholders  are  neither  disfranchised  nor 
forbidden  the  exercise  of  political  privileges;  but  their  privi- 
leges are  not  enlarged  nor  is  their  duty  to  party  increased  to 
pernicious  activity  by  officeholding. 

A  just  discrimination  in  this  regard  between  the  things  a  citi- 
zen may  properly  do  and  the  purposes  for  which  a  public  office 
should  not  be  used  is  easy  in  the  light  of  a  correct  appreciation 
of  the  relation  between  the  people  and  those  intrusted  with 
official  place  and  a  consideration  of  the  necessity,  under  our 
form  of  government,  of  political  action  free  from  official  coercion. 

Under  date  of  June  5,  1902,  the  commission  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  President  in  which  it  called  attention  to  the  omission  in 
the  new  postal  regulations,  issued  April  i,  1902,  of  former  sec- 
tion 435,  providing  that  — 

Officeholders  should  not  offend  by  obtrusive  partisanship, 
nor  assume  the  active  conduct  of  political  campaigns.  .  .  . 
This  is  in  consonance  with  the  order  of  President  Cleveland  of 
July  14,  I886./ 

The  commission  also  called  the  President's  attention  to  the 
following  statement  in  its  Eleventh  Report : 

The  commission  feels  strongly  that  whatever  rule  is  adopted 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  263 

should  apply  equally  to  adherents  of  all  parties,  and  that  it 
would  be  safe  to  adopt  as  such  a  rule  the  requirement  that  the 
adherents  of  the  party  in  power  shall  never  do  what  would  cause 
friction  in  the  office  and  subvert  discipline  if  done  by  the  op- 
ponents of  the  party  in  power.  A  man  in  the  classified  service 
has  the  entire  right  to  vote  as  he  pleases  and  to  express  privately 
his  opinions  on  all  political  subjects,  but  he  should  riot  take  any 
active  part  in  political  management  or  in  political  campaigns, 
for  precisely  the  same  reasons  that  a  judge,  an  army  officer,  a 
regular  soldier,  or  a  policeman  is  debarred  from  taking  such  ac- 
tive part.  It  is  no  hardship  to  a  man  to  require  this.  It  leaves 
him  free  to  vote,  think,  and  speak  privately  as  he  chooses,  but  it 
prevents  him,  while  in  the  service  of  the  whole  public,  from  turn- 
ing his  official  position  to  the  benefit  of  one  of  the  parties  into 
which  that  whole  public  is  divided;  and  in  no  other  way  can 
this  be  prevented. 

The  commission  recommended  either  that  a  general  executive 
order  upon  the  subject  be  issued  by  the  President  or  that  recom- 
mendation be  made  to  the  heads  of  departments  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  regulations  similar  to  the  post-office  regulation 
which  had  been  omitted. 

The  following  reply  was  received  under  date  of  June  13,  1902  : 

Gentlemen :  As  the  greater  includes  the  less,  and  as  the  exec- 
utive order  of  President  Cleveland  of  July  14,  1886,  is  still  in 
force,  I  hardly  think  it  will  be  necessary  again  to  change  the 
postal  regulations. 

The  trouble,  of  course,  comes  in  the  interpretation  of  this 
executive  order  of  President  Cleveland.  After  sixteen  years 
experience  it  has  been  found  impossible  to  formulate  in  precise 
language  any  general  construction  which  shall  not  work  either 
absurdity  or  injustice.  Each  case  must  be  decided  on  its  merits. 
For  instance,  it  is  obviously  unwise  to  apply  the  same  rule  to  the 
head  of  a  big  city  federal  office,  who  may  by  his  actions  coerce 
hundreds  of  employees,  as  to  a  fourth-class  postmaster  in  a  small 
village,  who  has  no  employees  to  coerce  and  who  simply  wishes 
to  continue  to  act  with  reference  to  his  neighbors  as  he  always 
has  acted. 

As  Civil  Service  Commissioner  under  Presidents  Harrison  and 
Cleveland  I  found  it  so  impossible  satisfactorily  to  formulate 


264  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

and  decide  upon  questions  involved  in  these  matters  of  so-called 
pernicious  activity  by  officeholders  in  politics  that  in  the 
Eleventh  Report  of  the  commission  I  personally  drew  up  the 
paragraph  which  you  quote.  This  paragraph  was  drawn  with  a 
view  of  making  a  sharp  line  between  the  activity  allowed  to 
public  servants  within  the  classified  service  and  those  without 
the  classified  service.  The  latter  under  our  system  are,  as  a  rule, 
chosen  largely  with  reference  to  political  considerations,  and,  as 
a  rule,  are  and  expect  to  be  changed  with  the  change  of  parties. 
In  the  classified  service,  however,  the  choice  is  made  without 
reference  to  political  considerations  and  the  tenure  of  office  is 
unaffected  by  the  change  of  parties.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  obvious  that  different  standpoints  of  conduct  apply 
to  the  two  cases.  In  consideration  of  fixity  of  tenure  and 
of  appointment  in  no  way  due  to  political  considerations  the 
man  in  the  classified  service,  while  retaining  his  right  to  vote  as 
he  pleases  and  to  express  privately  his  opinions  on  all  political 
subjects,  "should  not  take  any  active  part  in  political  manage- 
ment or  in  political  campaigns  for  precisely  the  same  reasons 
that  a  judge,  an  army  officer,  a  regular  soldier,  or  a  policeman  is 
debarred  from  taking  such  active  part."  This,  of  course,  applies 
even  more  strongly  to  any  conduct  on  the  part  of  such  employee 
so  prejudicial  to  good  discipline  as  is  implied  in  a  public  attack 
on  his  or  her  superior  officers,  or  other  conduct  liable  to  cause 
scandal. 

It  seemed  to  me  at  the  time,  and  I  still  think,  that  the  line 
thus  drawn  was  wise  and  proper.  After  my  experience  under 
two  Presidents  —  one  of  my  own  political  faith  and  one  not  — 
I  had  become  convinced  that  it  was  undesirable  and  impossible 
to  lay  down  a  rule  for  public  officers  not  in  the  classified  service 
which  should  limit  their  political  activity  as  strictly  as  we  could 
rightly  and  properly  limit  the  activity  of  those  in  whose  choice 
and  retention  the  element  of  political  considerations  did  not 
enter;  and  afterwards  I  became  convinced  that  in  its  actual 
construction,  if  there  was  any  pretense  of  applying  it  impartially, 
it  inevitably  worked  unevenly,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  inevi- 
tably produced  an  impression  of  hypocrisy  in  those  who  asserted 
that  it  worked  evenly.  Officeholders  must  not  use  their  offices 
to  control  political  movements,  must  not  neglect  their  public 
duties,  must  not  cause  public  scandal  by  their  activity;  but 
outside  of  the  classified  service  the  effort  to  go  further  than  this 
had  failed  so  signally  at  the  time  when  the  Eleventh  Report, 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  265 

which  you  have  quoted,  was  written,  and  its  unwisdom  has  been 
so  thoroughly  demonstrated  that  I  felt  it  necessary  to  try  to  draw 
the  distinction  therein  indicated. 

Sincerely  yours, 

THEODORE  ROOSEVELT. 

II.     Political  Coercion 
A 
(  The  civil-service  act  contains  the  following  provisions : 

...  no  person  in  the  public  service  is  for  that  reason  under 
any  obligations  to  contribute  to  any  political  fund,  or  to  render 
any  political  service,  and  ...  he  will  not  be  removed  or  other- 
wise prejudiced  for  refusing  to  do  so.  (Sec.  2,  clause  2,  par.5.) 

...  no  person  in  said  service  has  any  right  to  use  his  official 
authority  or  influence  to  coerce  the  political  action  of  any  per- 
son or  body.  (Sec.  2,  clause  2,  par.  6.) 

The  following  is  a  provision  of  the  civil-service  rules : 

No  person  in  the  executive  civil  service  shall  use  his  official 
authority  or  influence  for  the  purpose  of  interfering  with  an 
election  or  affecting  the  result  thereof.  (Rule  i,  sec.  i.) 

III.    Political  Assessments 

The  following  are  provisions  of  the  Criminal  Code : 

...  no  Senator,  or  Representative,  or  Territorial  Delegate 
of  the  Congress,  or  Senator,  Representative,  or  Delegate  elect, 
or  any  officer  or  employee  of  either  of  said  Houses,  and  no 
executive,  judicial,  military,  or  naval  officer  of  the  United  States, 
and  no  clerk  or  employee  of  any  department,  branch,  or  bureau 
of  the  executive,  judicial,  or  military  or  naval  service  of  the 
United  States  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  solicit  or  receive,  or  be 
in  any  manner  concerned  in  soliciting  or  receiving,  any  assess- 
ment, subscription,  or  contribution  for  any  political  purpose 
whatever  from  any  officer,  clerk,  or  employee  of  the  United 
States,  or  any  department,  branch,  or  bureau  thereof,  or  from 
any  person  receiving  any  salary  or  compensation  from  moneys 
derived  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  (Sec.  118.) 

...  no  officer  or  employee  of  the  United  States  mentioned  in 
this  act  shall  discharge,  or  promote,  or  degrade,  or  in  any  manner 


266  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

change  the  official  rank  or  compensation  of  any  other  officer  or 
employee,  or  promise  or  threaten  so  to  do,  for  giving  or  with- 
holding or  neglecting  to  make  any  contribution  of  money  or 
other  valuable  thing  for  any  political  purpose.  (Sec.  120.) 

...  no  officer,  clerk,  or  other  person  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  give  or  hand  over  to 
any  other  officer,  clerk,  or  person  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  any  Senator  or  Member  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, or  Territorial  Delegate  any  money  or  other  valuable  thing 
on  account  of  or  to  be  applied  to  the  promotion  of  any  political 
object  whatever.  (Sec.  121.) 

...  no  person  shall,  in  any  room  or  building  occupied  in  the 
discharge  of  official  duties  by  any  officer  or  employee  of  the 
United  States  mentioned  in  this  act,  or  in  any  navy-yard,  fort, 
or  arsenal,  solicit  in  any  manner  whatever,  or  receive,  any  con- 
tribution of  money  or  any  other  thing  of  value  for  any  political 
purpose  whatever.  (Sec.  119.) 

Whoever  shall  violate  any  provision  of  the  four  preceding 
sections  shall  be  fined  not  more  than  five  thousand  dollars,  or 
imprisoned  not  more  than  three  years,  or  both.  (Sec.  122.) 

All  offenses  which  may  be  punished  by  death,  or  imprison- 
ment for  a  term  exceeding  one  year,  shall  be  deemed  felonies. 
All  other  offenses  shall  be  deemed  misdemeanors.  (Sec.  335.) 

Solicitation  by  Letter 

In  the  case  of  U.S.  v.  Edward  S.  Thayer  the  Supreme  Court, 
on  March  9,  1908,  held  that  solicitation  by  letter  or  circular 
addressed  and  delivered  by  mail  or  otherwise  to  an  officer  or 
employee  of  the  United  States  at  the  office  or  building  in  which 
he  is  employed  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties  is  a  solicita- 
tion "in  a  room  or  building,"  etc.,  within  the  meaning  of  sec- 
tion 12  of  the  civil-service  act  (now  section  119  of  the  Criminal 
Code),  the  solicitation  taking  place  where  the  letter  was  re- 
ceived. 'I 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  267 

4.     THE    PRESENT    FEDERAL    CIVIL    SERVICE    AND    ITS    NEED    OF 
FURTHER   REFORM  1 

The  large  army  of  federal  employees  formerly  at  the  serv- 
ice of  the  party  in  power  has  been  decreased  in  size  by  laws  and 
executive  orders  which  have  placed  an  increasingly  large  pro- 
portion of  our  public  servants  under  civil  service  examination. 
The  officeholders  are  assured  fixity  of  tenure  of  office  during 
good  behavior.  Recent  administrations  have  widely  extended 
the  number  of  offices  in  which  this  principle  applies.  Much 
still  remains  to  be  done. 

The  labors  of  the  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League  have 
been  rewarded  during  the  administrations  of  President  Roose- 
velt and  President  Taft  by  the  attainment  of  many  improve- 
ments in  the  national  service.  To-day  about  294,000  employees 
of  the  government  are  in  the  classified  service,  of  whom  about 
226,000  are  competitive  and  most  of  whom  have  been  appointed 
for  merit  and  promise  demonstrated  through  adequate  examina- 
tions and  thorough  inquiry.  About  68,000  persons  in  the  classi- 
fied service  have,  however,  been  appointed  on  exceptional  terms, 
with  exemption  from  examination  or  without  competitive  exami- 
nation —  a  grievous  fact  which  cannot  but  gravely  qualify  the 
satisfaction  of  this  League  in  the  results  already  obtained  in 
the  lower  grades  of  the  national  civil  service  under  existing 
legislation. 

The  unclassified  service  numbers  about  61,000  persons,  of 
whom  49,000  are  unskilled  laborers,  and  2,600  are  census  ap- 
pointees. Deducting  these  5 1,600- persons  from  the  total  of  the 
unclassified  service,  there  remain  something  more  than  nine 
thousand  presidential  appointees  who  are  subject  to  confirmation 
by  the  Senate,  and  in  this  number  are  included  all  the  higher 
oificers,  such  as  first,  second,  and  third  class  postmasters,  collec- 

1  Eliot,  C.  W.,  Annual  Address  as  President  of  the  National  Civil 
Service  Reform  League,  at  the  meeting  Dec.  16,  17,  1910.  Good  Govern- 
ment, New  York,  January,  1911. 


268  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

tors  of  customs  and  internal  revenue,  appraisers,  district  at- 
torneys and  marshals,  consuls,  and  diplomatic  appointees. 
These  nine  thousand  are  all  political  appointments,  or  spoils  of 
victory  at  the  polls.  .  . 

Thus  much  ...  is  clear :  —  the  higher  places  in  the  govern- 
ment service,  to  the  number  of  nine  thousand,  are  inaccessible 
to  the  294,000  men  and  women  who  have  entered  the  classified 
service.  However  meritorious  these  subordinate  servants  of 
the  government  may  prove  themselves  to  be,  they  cannot 
reach  higher  posts  without  procuring  the  active  influence  of  a 
patron,  or  without  commending  themselves  in  some  way  to  the 
persons  in  whose  gift  the  higher  offices  lie.  The  original  appoint- 
ments in  the  classified  service  are  made  for  merit;  but  there- 
after advance  of  salary  and  promotion  must  be  secured,  as  a 
rule,  by  "influence,"  and  the  higher  parts  of  the  national  service 
are  in  the  main  inaccessible  to  members  of  the  classified  service. 

It  has  been  an  immense  gain  that  the  original  appointments 
to  226,000  places  have  been  rescued  from  the  grasp  of  politicians, 
and  made  accessible  in  a  thoroughly  democratic  way  to  compe- 
tent men  and  women;  but  so  long  as  promotions  generally  go 
by  favor,  and  not  by  merit,  and  so  long  as  there  are  many  thou- 
sands of  persons  in  the  classified  service  who  have  been  exempted 
from  passing  examinations  at  appointment,  or  have  passed  only 
non-competitive  examination,  the  civil  service  of  the  United 
States  cannot  be  said  to  offer  an  attractive  life-career  to  intelli- 
gent and  ambitious  young  people,  and  will  remain  inferior  as  a 
career  to  many  services  in  this  country,  already  organized  and 
conducted  on  a  merit  system  by  numerous  business  and  educa- 
tional corporations  and  charitable  or  betterment  associations. 
A  service  which  has  no  system  of  promotion  for  merit,  and  no 
system  of  pensions  or  retiring  allowances,  and  in  which  all  the 
higher  posts  are  held  on  short  tenures  and  without  personal  or 
official  independence,  is  obviously  very  inferior  not  only  to  most 
government  services  in  Europe,  but  to  many  private  and  cor- 
porate services  in  the  United  States,  which  have  already  adopted 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  269 

advancement  for  merit,  insurance  against  disease  and  accident, 
and  pensions  on  disability  or  old  age. 

In  consequence  of  this  unfortunate  condition  of  things,  many 
young  people,  of  good  quality  as  regards  both  intelligence  and 
character,  enter  the  national  service  by  examination,  serve  dili- 
gently for  a  few  years,  and  then,  finding  themselves  cut  off  from 
the  higher  places  in  their  several  departments,  quit  the  service 
of  the  govenment,  and  find  employment  in  private  or  corporation 
services  which  are  much  better  organized  than  the  civil  service 
of  the  national  government.  By  this  exodus  the  government 
is  constantly  losing  the  best  part  of  its  employees.  The  civil 
service  ought,  of  course,  to  offer  just  as  satisfactory  and  honor- 
able a  career  as  the  military  and  naval  services  offer ;  but  is  far 
from  doing  so,  first,  because  no  system  of  promotion  for  merit 
has  ever  been  contrived  for  the  civil  service,  and  secondly,  be- 
cause the  nine  thousand  posts  at  the  top  of  the  civil  service  are 
still  political  "spoils." 

The  work  of  the  National  Civil  Service  Reform  League  has 
been  supposed  by  many  public-spirited  persons,  who  are  not 
acquainted  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  to  have  been  practically 
accomplished ;  but  the  truth  is,  that  the  work  of  the  League  is 
only  well  begun,  and  its  most  important  work  remains  to  be 
done.  .  . 

It  has  been  the  practice  of  all  the  administrations  since  the 
civil  service  law  was  enacted  to  make  appointments  to  excepted 
positions  in  the  classified  service  without  conforming  to  the  pre- 
scriptions concerning  examinations.  These  exceptions  carry 
into  the  classified  civil  service  many  persons  who  have  given 
no  proper  evidence  of  either  capacity  or  character ;  and  put  at 
the  disposition  of  politicians  or  other  patrons  annual  salaries 
to  a  large  amount  in  total.  The  commonest  argument  in  favor  of 
these  exceptions  is  that  officials  who  have  fiduciary  functions 
want  to  have  assistants  selected  either  by  themselves  or  by 
friends  who  have  personal  knowledge  of  the  candidates.  This 
argument  is  not  a  remarkable  one.  A  fiduciary  officer  will  in 


270  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

most  cases  get  a  better  assistant,  if  he  is  supplied  by  a  civil  serv- 
ice commission  with  a  man  or  woman  whose  character,  habits 
and  mental  quality  have  been  subjected  to  an  impartial  examina- 
tion by  experienced  examiners,  than  he  will  procure  through  his 
own  individual  selection.  Accordingly,  experience  concerning 
delinquencies,  neglects,  and  crimes  in  the  civil  service  of  the 
United  States  shows  conclusively  that  they  occur  among  the 
excepted  appointees  and  in  the  unclassified  service  much  more 
frequently  than  in  the  competitive,  classified  service.  The 
best  man  to  trust  in  a  confidential  capacity  is  the  man  who  is 
not  afraid  to  have  his  previous  training  and  experience  and  his 
capacity  and  character  inquired  into  by  impartial  and  experi- 
enced examiners. 

A  strong  argument  in  favor  of  extending  the  classified  service 
all  the  way  up  to  those  offices  which  have  to  do  with  the  deter- 
mination of  the  political  policies  of  the  government  is  to  be  found 
in  the  political  activity  at  nominating  conventions  and  elections 
of  the  existing  unclassified  service  —  that  is,  of  all  the  higher 
civil  servants  of  the  government.  Officials  who  owe  their  ap- 
pointments to  political  influence,  who  hold  them  as  rewards 
for  party  service,  naturally  feel  under  obligations  to  be  active 
on  behalf  of  the  administration,  party,  "boss,"  senator,  or  repre- 
sentative, who  gave  them  their  appointments.  Every  recent 
national  administration  has  thus  far  accepted  the  political  serv- 
ices of  such  officials  without  restraint  during  nomination  and 
election  campaigns;  and  there  have  recently  been  given  strik- 
ing exhibitions  of  the  effective  response  of  "spoils"  civil  servants 
to  the  call  of  their  respective  patrons,  seeking  to  control  party 
conventions  in  the  state  of  New  York  and  in  several  of  the  South- 
ern States.  Several  Presidents  have  forbidden  political  activity 
to  members  of  the  classified  civil  service ;  but  no  President  has 
effectively  forbidden  members  of  the  unclassified  service  —  that 
is,  all  the  higher  officials  in  the  service,  to  be  active  in  nomi- 
nating conventions  and  political  campaigns.  So  long  as  the 
American  people  see  thousands  of  officeholders  exerting  them- 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  271 

selves  to  the  utmost  to  keep  their  party,  their  immediate  ad- 
ministrative superiors,  and  themselves  in  power,  so  long  will 
they  distrust  a  permanent  civil  service  with  tenure  during  effi- 
ciency and  good  behavior.  All  intelligent  persons  can  see  that 
a  permanent  civil  service,  which  can  afford  a  satisfactory  life- 
career  to  its  members,  must  be  ready  to  serve  whatever  chief 
officers  of  the  government  may  be  put  in  power  by  popular  elec- 
tion, and  must  therefore  be  prohibited  from  engaging  in  party 
political  activities  —  just  as  appointed  judges  and  officers  of 
the  army  and  navy  are  now  prohibited  from  participation  in 
political  conflicts  by  custom  and  by  their  own  self-respect  and 
desire  for  independence. 

Obnoxious  political  activity  is  not  the  only  abuse  which  would 
be  done  away  with,  if  the  civil  service  were  classified  all  the  way 
up  to  the  executive  offices  which  have  to  do  with  determining 
the  policies  of  the  government.  In  the  present  unclassified 
service  there  is  a  great  deal  of  absenteeism.  Many  men  ap- 
pointed for  political  reasons,  without  any  test  of  their  capacity 
or  fidelity,  are  not  only  frequently  absent  from  duty,  but  are  in 
the  habit  of  hiring  assistants  or  clerks  at  low  wages  to  do  all,  or 
nearly  all,  the  work  of  their  office,  taking  to  themselves  the 
greater  part  of  the  compensation  provided  for  their  offices,  but 
doing  none,  or  very  little,  of  the  work.  Under  a  merit  system 
of  appointment  and  promotion,  these  evils  would  not  occur. 

Again,  if  every  department  of  government  were  organized  on 
the  merit  system  as  a  business  office,  another  obvious  bad  tend- 
ency in  democracies  would  be  checked,  namely,  the  tendency 
to  create  sinecures,  or  offices  with  pay  but  no  function.  In  this 
respect  democracies  tend  to  outdo  aristocracies;  but  the  sine- 
cures created  by  democracies  are  usually  in  the  lower  grades  of 
government  employment,  rather  than  in  the  higher.  A  merit 
system  of  appointment  and  promotion  honestly  applied  would 
soon  do  away  with  the  thousands  of  sinecures  which  now  exist 
in  the  national,  state  and  municipal  governments  of  the  United 
States. 


272  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

In  order  to  secure  a  satisfactory  civil  service  from  bottom 
to  top,  something  more  than  good  methods  of  inquiry  into  the 
merits  of  candidates  for  appointment  and  promotion  is  clearly 
needed,  namely,  a  proper  system  of  probationary  appointments 
and  promotions.  No  appointment  should  be  made,  and  no  pro- 
motion given,  except  on  probation  for  a  specified  period.  The 
effect  on  a  given  man  of  securing  a  desired  appointment  or  pro- 
motion can  seldom  be  predicted  with  certainty,  and  moreover, 
one  who  has  succeeded  in  a  lower  station  is  not  sure  of  succeed- 
ing in  a  higher.  Hence,  probationary  appointments  are  an 
indispensable  part  of  a  sound  organization  which  proposes  to 
secure  fidelity  and  efficiency. 

This  League  has  been  interested  for  several  years  in  the  dis- 
cussion concerning  pensions,  or  retiring  allowances,  in  the  civil 
services  of  the  country,  national,  state  and  municipal ;  and  has 
endeavored  through  reports  of  committees  to  contribute  to  the 
progress  of  the  discussion.  It  believes  that  some  method  of  re- 
tiring disabled  or  superannuated  officials  in  a  humane  and  there- 
fore practicable  way  is  essential  to  the  best  efficiency  of  any  per- 
manent service;  but  it  sees  difficulties  in  the  way  of  applying 
any  pension  system  to  the  United  States  civil  service  in  its  pres- 
ent condition.  Until  men  in  the  lower  grades  of  the  service  have 
access  to  the  higher  grades,  the  lower  grades  themselves  will  not 
attract  or  keep  the  most  intelligent  and  ambitious  men ;  and 
in  consequence  it  will  sometimes  be  difficult  to  fill  the  higher 
grades  from  the  lower.  The  higher  officials,  on  the  other  hand, 
being  all  political  appointments  with  uncertain  tenure,  are  no 
fit  candidates  for  long-service  pensions.  Again,  existing  laws 
usually  prescribe  a  fixed  number  of  clerks  or  assistants  in  each 
of  several  grades  to  be  distributed  among  the  Washington  de- 
partments, leaving  to  the  heads  of  the  departments  no  discretion 
as  to  the  number  of  clerks  of  each  class  to  be  employed  in  the 
several  departments.  If  a  vacancy  occurs  in  one  of  the  higher 
classes  of  clerks,  it  is  the  interest  of  the  department  to  keep  good 
the  number  of  clerks  in  that  class.  If  the  vacancy  is  caused  by 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  273 

the  retirement  of  a  disabled  or  superannuated  official,  the  cost 
of  any  pension  or  retiring  allowance  given  to  him  is  a  clear  addi- 
tion to  the  cost  of  the  total  active  service ;  whereas,  if  the  head 
of  the  department  had  discretion  as  to  the  number  of  clerks  of 
each  class  that  he  employed,  a  pension  granted  to  a  retiring 
official  might  not  increase  at  all,  or  but  very  little,  the  total  ex- 
penditure for  clerical  service  within  the  department.  In  any 
well-arranged  administrative  staff  the  payment  of  a  pension  to  a 
retiring  official  will  not  cause  an  immediate  additional  expense 
to  its  full  amount ;  because  the  person  retired  is  usually  replaced 
by  a  much  cheaper  employee  at  the  other  end  of  the  scale,  and 
the  pension  is  never  equal  to  the  salary  of  the  person  retired. 
The  fixed  number  of  clerks  of  each  class  in  the  Washington  de- 
partments prevents  this  sort  of  economical  adjustment. 

An  active  discussion  has  lately  been  in  progress  concerning 
the  best  form  of  pension,  some  of  the  interested  persons  advocat- 
ing a  simple  pension  paid  outright  by  the  government,  like  the 
national  pensions  for  judges  and  army  and  navy  officers;  while 
others  advocate  the  establishment  in  case  of  the  government  of 
a  retirement  fund  to  be  derived  from  annual  reserves  from  the 
salaries  of  all  employees,  or  from  these  annual  reserves  and  con- 
tributions from  the  government.  This  League  has  taken  active 
part  through  a  committee  in  this  discussion.  The  members  of 
the  classified  civil  service,  many  of  whom  are  keenly  interested 
in  this  subject,  are  themselves  divided  on  the  question,  which  is 
the  best  form  of  pension.  On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  your  Presi- 
dent wisest  to  concentrate  the  activities  of  the  League  on  the 
improvement  of  the  civil  service  itself,  through  extension  of  the 
merit  system  and  faithful  execution  of  all  the  laws  on  the  subject, 
and  to  await  the  disappearance  of  the  unclassified  part  of  the 
service  before  it  should  itself  actively  urge  the  establishment  of 
any  pension  system  whatever. 


274  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

5.     LEGAL  REPRESSION  OF   POLITICAL  CORRUPTION1 

The  repression  of  political  corruption  is  a  task  difficult 
not  only  because  opportunities  for  its  practice  are  numerous 
but  because  all  those  directly  affected  feel  it  to  their  interest  to 
conceal  its  existence.  Where  political  feeling  runs  high  too,  a 
jury  trial  will  seldom  result  in  a  conviction  which  will  command 
general  respect,  and  even  the  courts  have  not  always  shown  the 
degree  of  nonpartisanship  present  in  other  classes  of  suits. 

Not  merely  dishonesty,  therefore,  not  merely  crime,  but  dis- 
honesty and  crime  systemized,  reduced  to  a  science,  practiced 
not  as  an  occasional  offense,  but  as  a  daily  occupation  by  men  in 
office  and  others  out  of  office  who  have  banded  together  to  enrich 
themselves  by  debauching  their  government  and  corrupting  its 
servants ;  —  this  is  the  central,  striking,  characteristic  feature 
of  political  corruption.  It  is  not  a  case  of  a  bribe  given  or  taken 
today  and  another  next  week,  with  no  connection  between  the 
two  offenses;  it  is  bribery  organized  into  a  profession  and  fol- 
lowed as  a  steady  means  of  livelihood.  Everywhere,  whether 
in  Harrisburg  or  San  Francisco,  in  St.  Louis  or  Milwaukee,  the 
procedure  is  the  same.  Only  the  size  of  the  bribe  fund  varies. 
The  methods  employed  are  everywhere  alike.  Upon  the  inside 
a  ring  of  public  officials  >who  compose  a  majority  of  the  common 
council,  county  board  or  State  legislature,  as  the  case  may  be, 
and  upon  the  outside  a  band  of  corrupt  capitalists  and  business 
men,  and  dominant  over  all  a  political  boss  assisted  by  flying 
squads  of  trained  and  experienced  lobbyists  drilled  in  the  busi- 
ness of  collecting  corruption  funds  from  the  bribe-givers  and 
distributing  them  among  the  bribe-takers  who  compose  the  ring. 

As  no  single  cause  has  called  this  institution  into  existence, 
so  no  remedy  alone  will  completely  eradicate  it.  Education, 
moral  suasion,  enlightened  political  action  directed  against  it  — 
all  these  and  others  are  effective  cures  within  certain  limitations. 

1  McGovern,  F.  E.,  Proceedings  of  the  American  Political  Science  Asso- 
ciation. 1907;  pp.  266-276. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  275 

But  without  legal  repression  to  break  the  ground  and  pave  the 
way  for  them  these  remedies  have  nowhere  proved  successful. 
General  denunciation  of  graft  is  safe,  but  ordinarily  quite  ineffec- 
tual. Specific  denunciation  of  political  corruption  is  never 
safe  unless  it  be  either  accompanied  or  preceded  by  successful 
prosecution  of  the  individual  denounced.  Besides,  scolding 
never  pays,  never  reforms ;  while  even  to  the  dullest  mind  prison 
stripes  inculcate  the  appropriate  moral  lesson. 

In  the  work  of  putting  corruptionists  behind  prison  bars  the 
first  and  most  indispensable  requirement  is  an  honest  grand  jury. 
Without  the  assistance  of  such  an  agency  political  corruption  has 
nowhere  been  successfully  exposed.  .  . 

Not  only  is  the  grand  jury  charged  with  the  special  duty  of 
accusing  those  who  have  directly  wronged  the  public,  but  it  also 
has  at  its  disposal  the  means  for  properly  accomplishing  this 
work.  Without  stating  its  reasons  or  outlining  its  purposes,  it 
may  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
books  and  documents.  It  meets  in  secret  and  usually  enjoins 
secrecy  also  upon  all  who  appear  to  testify  before  it.  Thus  its 
action  cannot  easily  be  anticipated,  influenced,  forestalled  or 
frustrated,  as  proceedings  before  an  examining  magistrate  may  be; 
for  secrecy  of  procedure  is  the  one  essential  prerequisite  to  the 
obtaining  of  legal  evidence  of  this  species  of  crime. 

Second  only  in  importance  to  the  employment  of  grand  juries 
as  a  legal  agency  for  the  repression  of  political  corruption  is  the 
assistance  furnished  by  immunity  laws.  Such  statutes  have  been 
devised  as  substitutes  for  the  constitutional  privilege  against 
compulsory  self-incrimination,  and  while  fulfilling  this  legal  re- 
quirement also  compel  the  disclosure  of  evidence  of  crime  which 
otherwise  would  go  unpunished. 

Bribery,  which  is  by  far  the  most  frequent  offense  involving 
political  corruption,  is  essentially  a  crime  of  darkness.  As  a  rule 
but  two  persons  have  knowledge  of  it,  the  bribe-giver  and  the 
bribe-taker.  Of  disinterested  spectators  there  are  none.  In- 
stead, the  parties  to  a  bribery  transaction  contrive  to  meet  in 


276  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

secret,  there  arrange  the  details  of  their  compact  in  private  and 
leave  behind  no  record  or  memorandum  of  it.  Each  is  equally 
guilty,  and  each  has  the  strongest  motive,  therefore,  for  con- 
cealing the  crime.  In  the  absence  of  an  immunity  statute,  for 
either  to  disclose  the  transaction  may  result  in  his  own  prosecu- 
tion ;  for  in  such  case  his  admission  of  guilt  can  be  used  against 
him,  while  as  to  his  partner  in  crime  it  would  be  mere  hearsay, 
not  evidence.  Under  these  circumstances  the  punishment  of 
this  and  kindred  offenses  has  often  been  placed  practically  be- 
yond the  power  of  the  law. 

To  meet  this  situation  and  to  enable  those  charged  with  the 
enforcement  of  penal  statutes  to  cope  with  crime  of  the  sort  here 
under  consideration,  immunity  laws  have  been  enacted.  If  it 
be  said  that  it  is  unjust  that  bribe-givers  should  be  permitted  to 
go  free  while  bribe-takers  are  sent  to  prison,  or  vice  versa,  the 
answer  is,  that  it  is  better  that  one  of  two  guilty  persons  should 
be  given  immunity  than  that  both  should  escape  prosecution, 
and  a  crime  which  strikes  at  the  very  foundation  of  free  institu- 
tions should  go  entirely  unwhipped  of  justice.  .  . 

Provided  with  an  honest  grand  jury  and  armed  with  an  im- 
munity law,  any  community  can,  if  it  will,  root  out  and  expose 
political  corruption  so  far  as  legal  agencies  are  capable  of  un- 
covering and  arraigning  at  the  bar  of  justice  crime  of  any  sort. 
But  the  conviction  and  punishment  of  those  arraigned  is  a  far 
more  difficult  task. 

This  is  so  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  In  bribery, 
for  example,  the  testimony  of  the  accomplice  or  partner  in  crime, 
when  clear  and  convincing,  is  always  sufficient  for  indictment, 
but  may  prove  inadequate  at  the  trial.  The  defendant,  whether 
guilty  or  innocent,  can,  if  he  will,  oppose  his  oath  to  that  of  his 
accuser  as  to  every  material  circumstance  in  the  case  and  sum- 
mon to  his  assistance  from  among  his  friends  the  full  comple- 
ment of  witnesses  who  will  swear  to  his  former  good  character 
and  unspotted  reputation.  It  is  true  that  sometimes  there  may 
be  additional  corroborative  facts  upon  the  side  of  the  prosecu- 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  277 

tion ;  but  ordinarily  the  case  will  go  to  the  jury  upon  the  oath 
of  the  State's  principal  witness,  in  opposition  to  that  of  the  ac- 
cused. The  situation  of  this  witness,  moreover,  is  not  above 
criticism,  nor  can  his  credibility  be  placed  beyond  question.  Of 
necessity  he  is  a  self-confessed  criminal,  whom,  if  his  testimony 
be  true,  the  immunity  law  alone  keeps  outside  of  prison  bars. 
Then,  too,  there  are  always  the  presumption  as  to  the  defendant's 
innocence  and  the  burden  of  proof  resting  upon  the  State  to  es- 
tablish his  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances is  it  strange  that  in  many  cases  where  good  people 
are  well  satisfied  there  was  guilt  there  should  be  acquittals  at  the 
close  of  jury  trials  ? 

In  such  cases,  however,  the  mere  fact  of  prosecution  is  not 
without  significance.  Though  ultimately  unsuccessful  a  public 
trial  may  have  accomplished  all  or  nearly  all  that  a  conviction 
could.  Here  the  facts  are  laid  bare  beneath  the  eye  of  the  whole 
community,  and  public  opinion  draws  its  inferences  from  such 
facts  quite  independently  of  the  verdict  of  the  twelve  men  who 
happened  to  sit  as  jurors  in  the  case.  And,  after  all,  the  break- 
ing up  of  a  vicious  system  and  the  elevation  of  the  standard  of 
official  honesty,  not  the  punishment  of  any  man  or  set  of  men, 
are  the  important  things. 

In  like  manner  great  good  may  be  accomplished  and  a  real 
victory  for  honest  government  won,  wherever  official  miscon- 
duct is  even  fairly,  impartially  and  fearlessly  charged  with  crime. 
In  a  country  such  as  ours,  public  opinion  is  unquestionably  a 
mighty  force.  Anything  which  goes  to  mold  it  by  arousing 
public  attention  and  directing  public  thought  to  specific  wrongs 
which  threaten  the  State,  is  of  the  highest  significance  and  value. 
The  average  person,  moreover,  who  commits  bribery,  or  any  of 
the  crimes  which  involve  political  corruption,  suffers  quite  as 
much  punishment  as  a  conviction  can  impose  before  his  case  is 
even  called  for  trial.  Exposure  and  disgrace,  the  deserved  es- 
trangement of  old  time  friends,  the  inevitable  and  almost  un- 
conscious suspicion  of  even  his  nearest  kindred,  his  own  remorse, 


278  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

heightened  and  intensified  a  hundred  fold  because  of  an  awakened 
public  conscience  —  these  are  the  things,  more  than  prison 
stripes,  which  strike  deepest  into  the  heart  and  most  mortally 
wound  the  pride  of  the  average  man  who  has  risen  in  business  or 
official  station  sufficiently  high  to  have  an  opportunity  or  a  mo- 
tive for  the  commission  of  this  species  of  crime. 

I  speak  now,  of  course,  only  of  those  who,  though  guilty  in 
fact,  cannot  be  or  have  not  been  convicted.  That  there  are 
many  such  no  well  informed  person  can  doubt.  Manifestly 
the  great  danger  here,  however,  is  that  innocent  men  may  be 
unjustly  accused  under  circumstances  which  make  it  very  diffi- 
cult, if  not  impossible,  for  them  completely  to  vindicate  them- 
selves. In  such  cases  great  and  even  irreparable  harm  may  be 
done.  The  only  safeguard  against  this  possibility  is  the  exer- 
cise of  caution  and  sound  judgement,  equal  care  at  all  times  for 
the  rights  of  the  accused  and  the  State,  and  the  prosecution  of 
no  one  for  a  merely  technical  offense  in  which  there  is  not  also 
moral  turpitude. 

In  the  work  of  prosecuting  these  quasi-political  offenders 
serious  obstacles,  of  course,  are  encountered  at  every  turn. 
From  the  beginning  to  the  end,  not  only  of  each  case,  but  of  each 
campaign  against  official  dishonesty,  they  line  the  road  at  almost 
every  point. 

First  in  order  of  treatment,  though  possibly  not  of  importance, 
is  incompetence,  timidity  and  disloyalty  on  the  part  of  prosecut- 
ing officers.  An  illustration  of  what  I  mean  was  recently  fur- 
nished in  this  State  in  a  case  where  a  district  attorney  was  re- 
moved from  office  by  the  governor  because  of  his  refusal  to  prose- 
cute indictments  for  bribery  which  had  been  returned  by  the 
grand  jury  of  his  county.  Fortunately  instances  of  this  kind 
are  rare.  But  when  they  occur  the  gravity  of  the  situation  needs 
no  comment.  If  the  man  who  must  bear  the  chief  burden  of 
this  work  is  not  equipped  or  lacks  relish  for  his  task,  little  in- 
deed can  be  expected  in  the  way  of  accomplishment. 

Next  and  more  important  among  these  obstacles  are  weak 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  279 

and  perverse  juries,  both  grand  and  petit.  Some  trial  juries 
seem  to  be  immune  to  evidence  of  crimes  involving  official  dis- 
honesty and  refuse  to  convict  no  matter  how  overwhelming  the 
proof  of  guilt  may  be.  Not  to  be  outdone,  grand  juries  have 
likewise  refused  to  indict,  although  abundant  evidence  to  war- 
rant such  action  was  submitted  to  them.  It  is  matter  of  current 
history  that  the  law  relating  to  the  manner  of  selecting  grand 
jurors  in  this  State  was  recently  changed  because  it  was  found, 
at  least  in  some  localities,  that  grand  jurors  selected  in  the  old 
way  by  aldermen  and  supervisors  would  not  do  their  duty.  .  . 

The  witnesses  called  by  the  prosecution  in  actions  involving 
political  corruption  often  sympathize  more  with  the  defense 
than  with  the  State  and  their  disposition  whenever  possible  to 
suppress  evidence,  distort  facts  and  suggest  defensive  matter  is 
another  obstacle  to  the  successful  prosecution  of  this  class  of 
cases.  At  the  trial  it  is  not  unusual  indeed  to  find  the  State's 
principal  witness  in  league  with  the  accused  and  willing  to  tell 
the  truth  only  so  far  as  he  may  be  compelled  to  do  so  under  fear 
of  prosecution  for  perjury. 

Erroneous  rulings  prejudicial  to  the  State  made  by  trial  judges 
upon  matters  of  law  constitute  another  serious  impediment  to 
the  successful  prosecution  of  these  offenses.  In  this  class  of 
cases  legal  technicalities  invariably  assume  formidable  propor- 
tions. The  plain,  ordinary,  unofficial  crook  who  steals  in  the  old- 
fashioned  way  when  no  one  is  looking,  and  not  by  securing  the 
passage  of  a  resolution  through  the  county  board  or  common 
council  or  a  bill  through  the  State  legislature,  when  charged  with 
crime  usually  comes  into  court,  pleads  not  guilty  to  the  informa- 
tion, and  goes  to  trial  upon  the  merits  in  the  court  where  he  is 
arraigned. 

Not  so  with  the  suspected  grafter.  He  usually  begins  battle 
with  the  State  by  filing  an  affidavit  of  prejudice  against  the  pre- 
siding judge.  This,  of  necessity,  will  compel  a  change  of  venue 
to  another  court,  and  will  occasion  delay,  sometimes  a  delay  of 
many  months.  When  the  case  is  finally  called  for  trial  in  the 


280  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

court  to  which  it  has  been  sent  his  usual  practice  is  to  file  a  plea 
in  abatement,  in  which  the  existence  and  regularity  of  almost 
anything  under  the  sun,  no  matter  how  remotely  connected  with 
the  indictment,  may  be  challenged.  If  this  plea  be  ruled  against 
him,  he  will  demur.  If  the  demurrer  be  over-ruled,  he  will  next 
interpose  a  motion  to  quash  the  indictment.  If  this  be  denied, 
he  will  then  file  a  special  plea  in  bar.  If  beaten  upon  this  issue 
also,  he  will  reluctantly  plead  to  the  merits,  and  if  convicted  will 
promptly  obtain  a  stay  of  execution  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
him  to  appeal  the  case  to  the  supreme  court.  Thus  the  trial 
upon  the  merits  may  be  the  smallest  part,  and  often  is  the  least 
interesting  proceeding  connected  with  the  whole  case. 

Needless  to  say,  the  attorneys  who  represent  defendants  in 
these  cases  are  among  the  leaders  at  the  bar.  No  money,  no 
effort,  no  ingenuity  will  be  spared  to  save  the  least  of  these  dis- 
tinguished gentlemen  from  merited  punishment ;  for,  no  matter 
how  poor  or  humble  or  insignificant  the  individual  grafter  may 
be,  back  of  him  stands  the  whole  body  of  corruptionists,  the 
political  boss  and  the  special  business  interests  he  represents, 
all  of  whom  have  waxed  fat  by  means  of  the  grafter's  knavery. 

Every  one  of  these  dilatory  pleas  involves  delay,  and  delay 
usually  weakens  the  State's  case.  Undoubtedly  it  is  often  with 
this  object  in  view  that  resort  is  had  to  them. 

Upon  any  one  of  these  questions  the  trial  judge,  if  he  be  weak 
or  partial  to  the  accused,  may  make  a  ruling  which  will  then  and 
there  end  the  prosecution  forever.  For,  as  a  rule,  the  State  has 
no  right  of  appeal  in  criminal  cases.  If  it  had  this  right,  as  it 
should,  weak  and  vacillating  judges  would  no  longer  resolve  every 
doubt  against  the  State,  in  order  thereby  to  avoid  reversals 
in  the  supreme  court  and  so  keep  their  records  clear.  .  . 

Moreover,  even  supreme  court  judges  sometimes  become  ex- 
tremely partisan.  It  is  interesting  now  to  turn  back  to  the 
opinions  written  in  bribery  cases  when  the  present  crusade 
against  political  corruption  was  only  just  begun.  Passing  by 
the  Tweed  case  in  New  York  and  the  Butler  case  in  St.  Louis  — 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  281 

monuments  both  to  the  bad  law  which  such  partisanship  may 
promulgate  in  order  to  protect  a  political  favorite  or  save  from 
prison  a  party  boss  —  let  a  single  instance  suffice.  In  the  Mey- 
senburg  case  (71  S.W.,  229)  decided  five  years  ago  by  the  su- 
preme court  of  Missouri  the  majority  opinion  savagely  attacked 
Mr.  Folk.  Almost  everything  he  did  in  the  conduct  of  that  case 
in  the  court  below  was  reviewed  and  criticised,  and  the  opinion 
then  concluded  with  the  following  stump  speech : 

This  record  abounds  at  every  turn  with  errors  committed, 
but  none  of  them,  however,  in  favor  of  defendant.  It  would  fill 
a  volume  properly  to  note  and  comment  upon  them.  It  will 
not  be  attempted.  Those  already  mentioned  must  be  taken  as 
indices  of  the  rest.  But  I  will  say  this  for  the  record  at  bar  — 
that  it  occupies  the  bad  preeminence  of  holding  a  larger  number 
of  errors  than  any  other  record  in  a  criminal  case  I  ever  before 
examined,  and  that,  if  this  record  exhibits  a  sample  of  a  fair 
trial,  then  let  justice  hereafter  be  symbolized  by  something  other 
than  the  blind  goddess  with  sword  and  scales. 

Decisions  such  as  these  by  courts  of  last  resort,  based  now 
upon  partisan  bias  and  again  upon  technicality  and  legal  hair- 
splitting to  the  utter  disregard  of  the  claims  of  justice  and  the 
suggestions  of  common  sense,  are  specially  vicious  in  their  far- 
reaching  effect  upon  trial  judges.  Intimidated  by  them,  cau- 
tious men  upon  trial  benches  too  often  become  dwarfed  in  func- 
tion and  paralyzed  in  judgment  until  they  are  mere  "umpires 
at  the  game  of  litigation." 

Another  obstacle  to  reform  along  the  lines  here  proposed  is 
hostile  public  sentiment.  All  men  are  opposed  to  dishonesty  in 
the  abstract  and  are  willing  to  applaud  an  assault  upon  it  under- 
taken in  another  city,  county  or  State.  But  it  makes  a  world  of 
difference  whose  ox  is  gored.  .  .  Reform  of  ourselves  or  of 
our  city  is  seldom  either  pleasant  or  popular.  Besides,  to  assail 
political  corruption,  no  matter  where,  is  to  throw  down  the 
gauntlet  to  the  most  powerful  political  and  financial  influences. 
It  is  only  natural  that  these  forces  should  resist  the  assault  with 
all  the  power  at  their  command  and  should  even  assume  the 


282  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

offensive  and  in  turn  make  war  upon  the  agencies  of  the  law  en- 
gaged in  the  task  of  enforcing  its  penalties  against  them.  Thus, 
venal  newspapers  will  be  enlisted  in  the  contest  and  an  under- 
current of  hostile  sentiment  will  be  started,  which,  sooner  or  later, 
will  manifest  itself  in  mis-trials,  perverse  verdicts,  adverse  rulings 
by  trial  judges  and  indefensible  decisions  by  courts  of  last  resort. 
Notwithstanding  all  these  difficulties,  however,  political  cor- 
ruption may  be  repressed  by  legal  means.  Recent  history  proves 
this.  To  doubt  that  in  the  future  this  history  will  be  repeated  is 
to  doubt  the  permanency  of  free  institutions  and  the  capacity  of 
a  free  people  for  self-government. 

6.     VIOLENCE  AT  ELECTIONS1 

Cases  of  intimidation  and  violence  in  .elections  though 
decreasing  in  number  are  still,  especially  in  the  crowded  dis- 
tricts of  our  large  cities,  the  accompaniment  of  every  closely 
fought  election. 

Thug  methods  were  resorted  to  at  the  polling  place  of  the  nth 
division  of  the  Tenth  Ward,  in  North  Broad  street,  yesterday. 
As  a  result  J.  S.  Ridenour  and  William  Acker  were  beaten  into 
unconsciousness  and  then  taken  to  the  Eleventh  and  Winter 
streets  station.  Two  other  William  Penn  watchers  —  J.  B.  and 
George  Kelly  —  were  also  beaten  and  arrested.  .  .  f 

.  .  .  The  assault,  it  is  charged,  was  prearranged.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  about  that,  it  is  declared,  for  each  victim  had  re- 
ceived warnings  that  in  case  of  his  seeking  to  interfere  with  the 
workings  of  the  Organization  he  would  be  hurt.  The  thugs  made 
good  their  threat.  After  being  released  after  5  o'clock,  Mr. 
Ridenour  told  the  following  story : 

"At  7  o'clock  all  the  Penn  party  watchers  were  in  front  of 
the  polls,  but  were  refused  admittance.  The  doors  were  not 
opened  to  the  voters  until  13  minutes  after  7.  A  mob  had  col- 
lected. .  . 

1  Public  Ledger.     (Philadelphia)  November  3,  1909. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  283 

"  Charles  McConnell,  the  Organization  division  leader,  shoved 
us  into  the  line  and  ordered  us  to  wait  until  about  a  dozen 
strangers  voted.  As  soon  as  we  had  voted  we  demanded  t6  see 
the  inside  of  the  ballot  box.  McConnell  ordered  the  lid  taken 
off  and  then  grabbed  me  and  thrust  me  toward  the  can.  I  did 
not  see  the  bottom  of  the  can,  however,  for  he  jerked  me  away 
as  suddenly  as  he  had  thrust  me  forward. 

"  A  man  giving  his  name  as  Andrew  Rodgers  appeared  next 
and  we  challenged  his  right  to  vote.  Our  objections  were  sus- 
tained, but  the  most  remarkable  scene  ensued.  Another  man, 
Charles  Hall,  desired  to  vote,  and  we  also  challenged  him. 
Rodgers,  against  whom  our  objections  were  sustained,  was  then 
permitted  to  vouch  for  Hall,  and  the  word  of  Rodgers  was  taken 
as  sufficient  reason  why  Hall's  vote  should  be  accepted." 

Watchers  Beaten  Unconscious 

"We  challenged  several  others  and  were  told  to  keep  quiet. 
Finally  one  Thomas  Campbell,  who  was  registered  from  the  rear 
of  1310  Cherry  street,  where  there  is  no  house,  by  the  way,  asked 
to  vote.  George  Kelly  challenged  him.  Campbell  then  cursed 
Kelly  and  ran  toward  him.  Before  Kelly  was  aware  of  Camp- 
bell's intentions  he  was  struck  in  the  face  and  Kelly  fell  back 
against  the  wall.  With  an  oath,  Campbell  kicked  at  Kelly  and 
was  about  to  strike  him  again.  I  seized  Campbell's  arm  and 
appealed  to  John  McCluskey,  the  judge  of  the  election,  for  aid. 
McCIuskey  and  the  entire  board  left  their  places  and  the  room 
filled  with  men  as  if  by  magic.  Then  I  was  struck  with  a  black- 
jack. The  blow  came  from  the  rear  and  I  fell.  I  remember  noth- 
ing more  until  I  found  myself  huddled  in  a  corner  with  Acker 
stretched  across  the  doorway.  I  attempted  to  rise,  but  was 
kicked.  After  several  attempts  to  gain  my  feet  I  grasped  the 
leg  of  the  table  and  pulled  myself  to  my  knees.  I  was  then 
thrown  across  the  still  unconscious  Acker  and  thrust  outside." 

Injured  Men  Arrested 

Then  ensued  one  of  the  most  remarkable  bits  of  police  politics 
that  has  ever  been  seen  here.  Kelly,  a  policeman  of  the  Elev- 
enth and  Winter  streets  station,  pulled  Ridenour  and  Acker  to 
their  feet  and,  in  pursuance  of  the  demands  of  the  Organization 
workers,  announced  that  they  were  under  arrest.  Ridenour 


284  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

fainted  from  loss  of  blood.  A  well  directed  blow  had  ripped  his 
scalp  behind  the  ear  and  the  bridge  of  his  nose  was  crushed.  In 
all  justice  to  the  policeman  it  must  be  said,  so  the  victims  have 
heard,  that  he  was  evidently  acting  under  instructions.  He 
helped  the  two  men  to  their  feet  and  half  dragged  them  to  the 
Hahnemann  Hospital.  There  four  stitches  were  put  in  Ride- 
nour's  scalp  and  his  nose  was  set  and  bandaged.  Acker's  in- 
juries were  not  so  painful.  Only  three  stitches  were  required 
to  close  his  wound. 

Ridenour  and  Acker  asked  the  policemen  to  be  allowed 
to  telephone  to  their  employers.  They  were  refused  this 
privilege  and  thrust  into  a  patrol  wagon.  At  the  station  house 
they  were  told  that  Director  Clay  had  issued  orders  that  no 
messages  should  be  sent  out  from  the  station. 

Ridenour's  friends  made  an  immediate  attempt  to  find  him. 
At  the  Eleventh  and  Winter  streets  station  a  reporter  .  .  .  was 
dismissed  with  a  snarling  denial  that  either  Ridenour  or  Acker 
was  there.  At  the  City  Hall  all  inquiries  were  met  with  a  pro- 
fession of  ignorance. 

Another  attempt  to  make  the  police  of  the  Eleventh  and  Win- 
ter streets  station  tell  where  their"  prisoners  were  met  with  a  curt 
refusal  and  a  denial  that  the  arrested  watchers  were  within  the 
cell  room.  Shortly  after  4  o'clock  Acker  was  released,  and,  of 
course,  the  whereabouts  of  Ridenour  and  the  Kellys  was  then 
made  known. 

Confronted  with  this  information,  the  police  admitted  that 
Ridenour  was  in  the  house,  but  refused  to  allow  any  one  to  see 
him.  Commissioner  Frank  Gorman,  secretary  of  the  William 
Penn  party's  City  Committee,  was  appealed  to  on  behalf  of 
Ridenour,  and  was  told  by  the  police  that  the  beaten  watcher  had 
been  released  with  Acker.  This,  however,  was  untrue,  for  Ride- 
nour was  not  released  until  5  o'clock.  At  the  police  station 
those  in  charge  told  the  reporters  that  the  affair  was  not  of  their 
doing,  but  that  they  had  acted  under  strict  orders  from  the  City 
Hall. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  285 

Mr.  Gorman  declared  that  almost  all  attempts  of  his  to  secure 
the  signature  of  a  Magistrate  to  a  copy  of  the  charge  against  the 
various  incarcerated  men  had  been  fruitless,  and  that  where  he 
had  got  the  signatures  they  were  not  honored  by  the  police. 

Other  Watchers  Locked  Up 

In  the  station  house  with  Ridenour,  Acker  and  the  Kellys  were 
four  other  William  Penn  watchers  from  various  divisions  of  the 
loth  ward.  One  of  these  was  William  Smith,  a  former  police- 
man of  the  station  in  which  he  was  a  prisoner,  and  a  William 
Penn  watcher  from  the  third  division  of  the  loth  Ward. 

Smith  said  that  policemen  escorted  voters  in  carriages  to  his 
division,  and  his  arrest  was  the  result  of  his  protests.  An  at- 
tempt was  made  to  assault  him,  Smith  declared,  and,  as  a  result, 
the  voting  room  was  wrecked.  The  booths  were  partly  wrenched 
apart  to  be  used  as  clubs.  Smith  said  he  was  dragged  to  the 
station  house  by  several  of  his  former  associates.  .  . 

.  .  .  Activity  of  policemen  and  other  office-holders  at  many 
of  the  1174  election  divisions  in  the  city  was  evident  from  the 
opening  of  the  polls  until  their  closing  at  7  o'clock,  and  accord- 
ing to  charges  made  at  the  Penn  party  headquarters,  no  attempt 
was  made  by  the  police  in  many  instances  to  interfere  with  at- 
tacks on  Penn  party  workers  by  ruffians.  .  . 

7.  DEFEATING  THE  AUSTRALIAN  BALLOT  BY  THE 

VOTE  l 

Laws  intended  to  help  the  illiterate  or  crippled  voter  to 
take  his  part  in  the  elections  often  form  in  the  hands  of  corrupt 
party  managers  only  a  blind  by  which  the  secrecy  of  the  ballot 
of  those  willing  to  sell  their  votes  may  be  destroyed. 

I  shall  now  describe  .  .  .  the  working  of  Mr.  Addicks' 
political  'machine,'  and  the  methods  by  which  he  buys  votes.  .  . 

1  Kennan,  G.,  Outlook.    February  22,  1903;  p.  432  et  seq. 


286  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

The  most  valuable  and  useful  cog  in  Mr.  Addicks'  machine  is, 
unquestionably,  the  voter's  assistant.  When  the  State  of  Dela- 
ware adopted  the  Australian  ballot  system,  it  was  thought  neces- 
sary to  provide  the  illiterate  voter  —  and  especially  the  negro  — 
with  expert  assistance  in  the  marking  of  his  ballot.  The  Gov- 
ernor was  therefore  empowered  and  directed  to  appoint,  for 
every  polling-place,  two  voter's  assistants  —  one  from  each  of 
the  two  dominant  parties  —  whose  duty  it  should  be  to  read  or 
explain  the  ballot  to  the  voter  and  assist  him  in  marking  it.  It 
was  not  long  before  these  voter's  assistants  became  —  as  Mr. 
Willard  Saulsbury  said  in  his  letter  to  Governor  Hunn  —  mere 
'tally  clerks  to  see  that  purchased  voters  delivered  the  goods.' 
As  the  Union  Republican  party,  in  recent  elections,  has  been  one 
of  the  two  principal  parties,  it  has  had  its  own  voter's  assistants, 
and  has  used  them  to  keep  watch  and  tally  of  its  purchased  vote. 
If  Mr.  Addicks  had  not  been  able,  by  means  of  these  officers,  to 
check  up  his  expenditures  and  make  sure  that  he  received  the 
votes  for  which  he  had  paid,  he  would  not  now  have  twenty-one 
Senators  and  Representatives  voting  for  him  in  the  Legislature 
of  the  State.  Voters  might  have  taken  his  money  just  as  freely, 
but  many  of  them  would  not  have  '  delivered  the  goods.7 

In  practice,  the  voter's  assistant  part  of  Mr.  Addicks'  machine 
consists  of  a  secret  booth,  a  corrupt  voter's  assistant,  a  cashier's 
office,  and  a  cashier.  The  workers  make  '  deals '  with  purchasable 
voters  before  election  day,  and  then  furnish  the  cashiers  with 
lists  of  men  bought  and  amounts  of  money  promised.  When 
the  purchased  voter  goes  to  the  polls,  the  corrupt  voter's  as- 
sistant sees  that  his  ballot  is  properly  marked  and  deposited,  and 
then  gives  him  something  in  the  nature  of  a  token,  as  a  proof 
that  the  goods  have  been  delivered.  The  voter  thereupon  goes 
to  the  cashier's  office,  surrenders  the  token,  and  receives  the 
amount  of  money  set  opposite  his  name  on  the  worker's  list, 
which  has  previously  been  turned  over  to  the  cashier  for  the 
latter's  guidance. 

At  one  polling-place  in  the  Baltimore  hundred,  in  the  early 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  287 

days,  the  token  given  to  the  purchased  voter  was  a  chestnut, 
which  the  assistant  put  into  the  voter's  pocket.  It  soon  became 
noised  about  among  the  colored  men  of  the  village  that  ordinary 
chestnuts  at  the  cashier's  office  were  bringing  $10  apiece.  Two  or 
three  negroes  provided  themselves  with  chestnuts  from  private 
sources  of  supply,  and  went  boldly  into  the  cashier's  office  to 
get  money  for  which  they  had  rendered  no  service.  To  their 
great  surprise  and  disappointment,  they  were  promptly  hustled 
out,  minus  chestnuts  and  without  any  money.  All  chestnuts 
looked  alike  to  them,  and  they  could  not  understand  what  was 
wrong  with  their  chestnuts,  until  they  learned  a  few  days  later 
that  all  the  chestnuts  of  the  voter's  assistant  had  been  carefully 
and  thoroughly  boiled,  for  easy  identification  and  as  a  pre- 
caution against  this  very  trick. 

The  Addicks  managers  now  provide  their  voter's  assistants 
with  tokens  that  have  been  bought  outside  of  the  State  and  that 
cannot  be  easily  duplicated  or  counterfeited.  In  Dagsboro,  in 
last  fall's  election,  they  used  a  red  celluloid  button  of  a  peculiar 
form  which  could  not  be  obtained  in  Delaware.  In  the  Balti- 
more hundred  they  had  tin  tags  stamped  'O.K.'  Tin  tags 
were  also  used  in  Milford,  Kent  County.  In  other  representative 
districts  purchased  voters  were  given  a  certain  number  of  links 
of  a  small,  fine  chain,  or  peculiar  large-headed  black  pins,  which 
they  stuck  in  their  coats  when  they  went  to  the  cashier's  office 
for  settlement. 

The  system  was  ingenious  and  worked  well ;  but  in  some  parts 
of  the  State,  where  the  voter's  assistants  could  be  fully  relied 
upon,  money  was  given  directly  to  them,  and  they  paid  for  votes 
in  their  booths.  This  was  safer  than  making  settlements  out- 
side and  involved  less  trouble.  .  . 

When  Mr.  Addicks'  agents  first  began  to  buy  votes  in  southern 
Delaware,  they  could  'get'  only  a  part  of  the  negroes,  and  a  few 
men  from  the  poorest  class  of  whites ;  but  the  corrupting  influ- 
ence of  money,  used  boldly  and  with  impunity  throughout  a  long 
series  of  years,  finally  had  its  effect  upon  men  of  a  higher  type  — 


288  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

men  who  could  not  plead  poverty  as  an  excuse  for  their  acts. 
Well-to-do  farmers  in  Sussex  County,  who  own  their  farms  and 
have  money  in  bank,  now  sell  their  votes  regularly  every  other 
year ;  and  as  for  the  colored  population,  which  polls  in  the  two 
lower  counties  a  vote  of  about  five  thousand,  it  has  been  cor- 
rupted en  masse.  Many  informants  in  Kent  and  Sussex  told 
me  that  in  the  circle  of  their  personal  acquaintance  they  did  not 
know  a  single  negro  who  'voted  his  sentiments.'  Every  man 
of  them  sold  his  vote  for  what  it  wbuld  bring. 

8.     REPEATING 1 

In  large  cities  it  is  impossible  for  the  election  officials  to 
know  all  the  voters.  This  makes  it  possible  for  corrupt  party 
workers  to  get  the  names  of  men  not  qualified  to  vote  on  the 
registry  books  not  only  in  one  but  in  various  precincts.  Such 
votes  once  cast  are  as  valid  as  any.  The  effect  on  the  result  of 
course  is  the  same  as  if  the  ballot  box  had  been  stuffed  by  the 
election  officials. 

For  thirty-two  years  preceding  the  election  of  1908,  the  num- 
ber of  persons  registering  in  the  boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  the 
Bronx  increased  every  four  years  on  an  average  29,714.  In  1908, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  registered  vote  in  the  same  territory  de- 
creased 19,952,  which,  if  added  to  the  normal  increase  during  the 
preceding  thirty-two  years,  represented  a  total  falling  off  of 
49,666  in  the  boroughs  of  Manhattan  and  the  Bronx  alone.  It 
is  also  more  worthy  of  note  that  far  greater  efforts  were  made  to 
check  this  vote  in  this  same  territory  than  in  the  rest  of  the  city. 
Despite  this  falling  off  of  the  registration  in  the  elections  of  1908, 
yet  in  this  very  same  election  a  leader  of  an  assembly  district 
has  stated  that  in  his  district  alone  he  found  900  fraudulent  regis- 
trations, and  even  then  he  believed  that  there  were  many  that 
he  had  not  discovered.  This  leader,  moreover,  is  known  as  one 

1  Finch,  E.  R.,  "  The  Fight  for  a  Clean  Ballot."  Independent.  May  12, 
1910. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  289 

who  is  over-diligent  in  seeking  to  prevent  these  frauds.  A  care- 
ful investigation  in  widely  different  parts  of  the  city  following 
the  election  of  1908  showed  that,  even  with  all  the  fraudulent 
votes  that  had  been  eliminated,  yet  in  many  districts  this  vote 
ran  from  one-eighth  to  one-quarter  of  the  total  registered  vote. 
The  above  statements  are  not  those  made  by  a  writer  solely  for 
the  sake  of  exciting  attention,  but  are  capable  of  demonstration 
and  actual  proof. 

It  has  been  publicly  stated  that  following  the  election  had 
last  November,  those  in  a  position  to  know  have  admitted  that, 
owing  to  the  precautions  which  were  taken  to  prevent  these 
frauds,  20,000  "tin  soldiers,"  as  they  call  the  repeaters,  had  been 
prevented  from  registering  and  voting.  This  is  the  admitted 
statement  of  those  who  produce  this  vote.  A  conservative  es- 
timate places  the  number  of  fraudulent  registrations  and  votes 
prevented  as  upward  of  30,000.  When  it  is  noticed  that  a 
Sheriff,  District  Attorney,  a  President  of  the  Borough  of  Man- 
hattan and  three  Supreme  Court  Judges  were  elected  by  con- 
siderably less  than  30,000,  thoughtful  men  pause  and  wonder 
how  often  in  the  past  has  the  true  verdict  of  the  people  been  over- 
ridden. 

New  York  City,  because  of  its  size  and  because  the  election 
officers  do  not  expect  to  know  their  neighbors,  furnishes  the 
Mecca  for  those  who  make  it  their  business  to  produce  this  vote. 
For  many  years  now  in  this  city  personal  registration  has  been 
required.  Those  who  wish  to  vote  must  present  themselves  at 
the  polling-place  on  one  of  four  specified  days  within  thirty  days 
preceding  election  day,  and  there  personally  state  to  the  board 
of  inspectors  their  qualifications.  This  is  done  by  answering 
and  signing  the  following  questions:  Name  and  address,  age, 
number  of  floor  residing  on,  person  residing  with,  whether  na- 
tive born  or  a  naturalized  citizen,  and  if  naturalized,  in  what 
court,  length  of  time  residing  in  the  State,  in  the  county  and  in 
the  election  district,  from  where  last  registered  and  voted. 

For  the  purpose  of  affording  convenient  access  to  the  polling- 


290  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

places,  the  city  is  divided  into  election  districts  upon  a  basis  of 
having  500  registered  voters  in  each  district.  When  the  person 
applying  to  register  presents  himself  this  information  is  taken 
down  by  four  separate  inspectors,  each  of  whom  makes  a  sepa- 
rate record  of  the  answers  of  the  voter.  Two  of  these  inspectors 
represent  the  party  casting  the  highest  number  of  votes  for  Gov- 
ernor in  the  last  preceding  election,  and  two  of  them  represent 
the  party  casting  the  next  highest  number  of  votes  cast  for  Gov- 
ernor, and  thus  they  represent  at  the  present  time  the  Republi- 
can party  and  the  Democratic  party  respectively. 

On  election  day  the  voter  presents  himself  again  at  the  same 
polling-place  and  gives  his  name  and  address  and  signs  his  name 
and  deposits  the  ballot  that  is  given  him  in  the  ballot  box.  Now, 
if  the  board  of  inspectors  knew  their  neighbors,  as  would  be 
the  case  if  the  community  was  a  small  one,  then  fraudulent  regis- 
tration would  be  almost  an  impossibility.  The  board  of  in- 
spectors would  expect  to  know  those  applying  to  register,  or  at 
least  to  know  their  identity.  The  risk  a  repeater  would  run 
would  be  too  great.  In  the  City  of  New  York  none  of  the  in- 
spectors composing  the  board  expect  to  know  the  person  apply- 
ing to  register.  It  is  an  exception  if  they  do  know  him. 
Probably  out  of  500  people  that  apply  for  registration,  they 
may  know  fifty  of  them. 

This  is  the  great  fact  upon  which  the  producer  of  the  fraudu- 
lent vote  relies.  In  each  election  district  one  person,  aided  by 
assistants,  is  responsible  for  the  false  registrations  to  be  pro- 
duced in  that  district.  The  object  is  to  put  on  the  rolls  as  many 
false  registrations  as  possible.  Of  course,  in  many  districts  of 
the  city  it  is  impossible  to  produce  much  of  this  vote,  but  in 
other  districts  the  conditions  are  such  that  the  deficiency  can  be 
made  up. 

Now,  let  us  see  how  easy  it  is  to  do  this.  A  man  comes  in 
to  the  registration  board  and  gives  his  name  as  Thomas  Robin- 
son, his  address  as  a  large  boarding  house  or  says  he  lives  with 
Mrs.  X.,  on  the  sixth  floor  of  a  ten-story  apartment  house  having 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  291 

four  families  on  a  floor;  that  he  has  been  living  there  for  two 
weeks ;  is  thirty-two  years  of  age ;  has  been  in  the  State  three 
years  and  in  the  county  six  months ;  is  a  native-born  citizen  and 
has  not  registered  and  voted  before  in  this  State,  and  signs  his 
name. 

The  board  of  inspectors  do  not  know  that  these  facts  about 
him  are  not  true  and  there  is  no  one  else  to  challenge  him.  The 
producer  of  this  vote  has  seen  Mrs.  X.  long  before.  .  .  If,  as 
very  rarely  happens,  inquiry  is  made  between  registration  and 
election  days,  Mrs.  X.  is  prepared  to  say  that  Thomas  Robin- 
son is  not  at  home,  but  that  he  lives  there. 

Thomas  Robinson,  after  registering  in  this  polling  place,  has 
walked  up  the  street  and  had  himself  introduced  to  the  producer 
of  the  fraudulent  vote  in  the  next  election  district  and  has  had 
furnished  him  another  Mrs.  X.,  and  here  he  has  registered  under 
the  name  of  William  Jones  and  given  the  second  Mrs.  X.'s  ad- 
dress. Very  often,  and  despite  all  the  vigilance  used  during  the 
last  election,  it  has  even  happened  that  Thomas  Robinson  has 
gone  before  the  same  board  of  registration  officers  and  given  an- 
other name  and  another  address  in  the  same  election  district, 
and  put  another  name  on  the  same  roll.  A  person  who  is  genu- 
inely interested  in  preventing  these  frauds  can  see  them  perpetu- 
ated by  visiting  any  one  of  a  number  of  different  registration 
places. 

Now,  on  election  day,  a  repeater  often  other  than  the  repeater 
who  placed  the  name  on  the  roll,  comes  to  each  of  these  polling 
places,  gives  the  name  and  the  address  that  was  registered,  signs 
his  name,  takes  the  ballot,  marks  it  and  deposits  it.  When  once 
in  the  box  it  is  just  as  valid  as  the  ballot  deposited  by  any  honest 
American  who  has  waited  for  one-third  of  his  life  before  he  was 
entitled  to  deposit  his  ballot  in  the  ballot  box.  .  . 

Let  us  see  how  the  producer  distributed  the  false  registra- 
tions in  the  block  composing  his  district. 

His  wife  and  he  occupied  the  first  floor  above  the  basement 
of  a  three-story  house  made  over  to  accommodate  a  family  on 


292  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

each  floor.  Eight  names  were  to  be  registered  as  living  with 
them,  and  his  wife  knew  her  role.  He  had  been  able  to  provide 
some  odd  jobs  for  the  man  who  rented  the  floor  above,  and  in 
return  this  man  and  his  wife  were  to  stand  cover  for  seven.  The 
woman  who  rented  the  top  floor  was  to  pretend  that  five  lived 
with  her,  in  consideration  of  the  payment  of  her  rent  for  a  month. 
The  barber  in  the  basement,  favoring  a  steady  customer,  was 
willing  to  put  a  screen  in  the  rear  to  cover  a  double  cot  and  make 
pretense  for  two  more.  He  had  gone  to  every  one  who  had  taken 
names  the  year  before  and  had  urged  the  necessity  of  the  great- 
est possible  increase.  In  addition,  he  had  canvassed  the  janitor 
and  the  lessee  of  every  apartment  house  and  the  proprietor  of 
every  house  with  rooms  to  let.  Wherever  there  was  a  vacant 
apartment  he  had  endeavored,  and  in  most  cases  with  success, 
to  persuade  the  janitor  to  say  it  was  occupied  by  the  persons 
whose  names  he  furnished.  The  persons  living  in  his  district 
whom  he  knew  he  approached  directly,  and  others  he  approached 
thru  mutual  friends.  Those  who  were  willing  he  paid  either 
with  a  cash  consideration  or  a  future  reward. 

A  doctor,  who  was  hoping  to  be  appointed  as  a  Coroner's 
physician,  occupied  a  house  with  his  father  and  brother,  and  was 
willing  to  take  four  additional  names.  The  inmates  of  a  dis- 
orderly house  had  been  sent  away  and  twenty-seven  cots  had 
been  sent  in,  and  the  house  had  a  sign  as  renting  rooms  to  men 
only.  A  stable  in  the  block  had  furnished  cover  for  eleven  more. 
If  any  questions  were  asked  of  these  men,  their  only  answer  was 
to  be  that  they  worked  and  slept  in  the  stable.  He  himself  was 
employed  in  a  city  department,  and  consequently  only  put  in 
an  appearance  for  a  few  minutes,  once  in  the  morning  and  once 
in  the  afternoon.  Every  one  in  the  department  understood  that 
it  was  the  month  before  election.  He  had  kept  in  mind  all  the 
year  around  the  real  work  that  he  was  assigned  to  do.  When- 
ever any  favor  was  done  for  any  householder  or  lessee,  there  was 
always  the  idea  that  this  person  might  be  obtained  as  a  cover  for 
additional  false  votes. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  293 

His  efforts  had  almost  brought  the  number  up  to  150,  and  he 
was  counting  on  taking  the  chances  of  having  a  few  register  from 
residences  whose  owners  would  not  be  likely  to  scan  the  registra- 
tion list,  or  if  they  did,  would  be  too  fearful  of  notoriety  and  in- 
convenience to  make  any  complaint.  Following  the  usual  cus- 
tom, he  had  arranged  for  the  use  of  a  vacant  basement  next  door 
to  the  polling  place.  Here  he  had  a  helper  in  charge  who  had  a 
list  of  the  places  from  which  the  names  were  to  be  registered. 
Thruout  the  four  days  of  registration  he  would  be  visited  from 
time  to  time  by  a  man  whom  he  would  know  and  who  would 
introduce  to  him  two  or  three  men  at  a  time,  and  these  men  would 
be  sent  into  the  basement,  and  there  given  the  name  and  address 
and  information  under  which  they  were  to  go  up  and  register 
in  the  polling-place.  As  soon  as  they  had  registered  they  would 
come  back  to  the  basement  and  would  be  furnished  with  a  slip 
upon  which  they  would  write  the  name  and  address  under  which 
they  had  just  registered,  and  the  name  of  the  person  with  whom 
they  had  stated  they  lived.  On  the  same  slip  they  would  also 
sign  the  name  just  the  same  as  they  signed  it  in  the  polling  place. 
Having  made  this  slip  out  and  turned  it  in,  they  would  receive 
$i  apiece  for  registering,  and  go  off  with  their  leader  to  another 
polling  place  to  meet  the  man  who  was  there  in  charge  of  the 
same  work. 

The  object  of  having  the  information  put  on  a  slip  and  the 
name  signed  as  the  repeater  had  signed  it  on  the  registration 
book  was  to  have  this  slip  ready  to  turn  over  to  the  man  who 
would  vote  under  this  name  on  election  day. 

The  man  who  acted  as  introducer  is  known  as  the  "guerrilla" 
leader.  On  election  day  the  same  "guerrilla"  leader  and  other 
"guerrilla"  leaders  would  bring  around  the  same  or  other  men, 
only  more  men  would  be  brought  at  one  time  and  they  would  be 
brought  faster,  because,  while  there  are  four  days  to  register 
the  names,  yet  all  the  names  registered  must  be  voted  on  elec- 
tion day.  It  is  the  custom  to  get  a  start  early  in  the  morning, 
and  so,  after  the  polls  have  been  open  for  a  few  minutes,  there  is 


294  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

usually  a  line  of  from  seventy-five  to  one  hundred  men  waiting 
to  vote.  In  addition  to  the  men  brought  by  the  "guerrilla" 
leaders,  the  producer  of  the  vote  in  the  particular  election  dis- 
trict usually  knows  a  few  local  men  whom  he  can  utilize.  Last 
year,  it  was  said,  two  men,  partners  in  business,  who  had  re- 
ceived contracts  under  the  city  government,  and  who  had  an 
acquaintance  with  the  producers  of  this  vote  in  certain  sec- 
tions of  the  city,  were  informed  that  they  would  have  to  act 
as  "guerrilla"  leaders.  They  demurred,  but  were  told  that  if 
they  expected  any  favors  to  come,  they  would  have  to  so  act. 

When  considered  in  the  abstract,  it  looks  as  if  the  fraud  is 
bold,  but  when  the  concrete  case  is  presented,  as  shown  above,  it 
is  seen  that  the  chance  of  detection  is  not  formidable.  The 
"  guerrilla  "  leaders  prefer  to  have  men  from  out  of  the  State, 
because  at  the  close  of  the  day  these  men  can  leave  the  State  and 
their  identity  is  lost. 

The  devices  used  to  give  color  for  false  residences  are  innumer- 
able. Old  names  are  sought  to  be  kept  on  the  rolls,  because  it 
follows  that  the  older  they  are,  the  more  certain  the  investigator 
feels  that  they  must  be  legitimate.  Similarly,  the  names  of 
dead  men  are  oftentimes  kept  on  the  rolls.  In  the  election  of 
1908  a  name  was  registered  which  was  that  of  a  son  whose  mother 
said  that  he  had  died  in  1904.  This  illustrates  the  humor  in 
the  remark  of  a  Philadelphian  "that  they  were  still  voting  in 
that  city  the  names  of  the  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence." 

The  names  of  those  who  have  moved  between  one  election  and 
another  furnishes  a  fruitful  source.  From  30  per  cent,  to  45 
per  cent,  of  the  voters  in  an  election  district  move  between  each 
election.  The  remaining  70  per  cent,  to  55  per  cent,  represent 
the  permanent  roll.  These  men  should  be  checked  up  during 
the  period  immediately  following  one  election  and  in  preparation 
for  the  next.  But  it  has  often  been  customary  to  make  little,  if 
any,  investigation  prior  to  the  next  registration,  which  must  all 
take  place  in  the  thirty  days  immediately  preceding.  Then  an 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  295 

effort  is  made  to  check  up  the  total  registration  in  the  city  of 
New  York,  which  numbers  upward  of  650,000  voters.  It  is  im- 
possible in  this  short  time  to  make  any  adequate  investigation, 
and  consequently,  the  few  cases  that  are  investigated  are  often 
done  in  a  haphazard  fashion,  and  such  investigation  must  of 
necessity  only  concern  a  small  portion  of  the  names  fraudulently 
registered.  .  . 

As  greater  efforts  have  been  made  for  a  clean  ballot,  so  greater 
counter-efforts  and  more  ingenious  devices  have  been  used  on 
the  part  of  those  producing  this  fraudulent  vote.  In  the  last 
election  transfers  of  fraudulent  names  were  had  between  different 
election  districts  and  between  different  assembly  districts,  so 
as  to  baffle  the  investigator  in  verifying  registration.  Again, 
squads  of  men  have  been  hired  in  adjacent  cities  and  brought 
to  the  city  of  New  York  for  the  purpose  of  having  them  sleep  a 
few  nights  in  one  district  and  a  few  nights  in  another  district 
and  so  on,  and  have  them  register  in  each  of  such  districts.  One 
man  from  out  of  town  showed  four  different  keys  of  the  four 
places  where  he  was  to  sleep  a  few  nights.  Again,  names  were 
put  on  the  rolls  of  foreigners  actually  living  in  the  district. 
When  inquiry  was  made  at  the  houses  it  was  ascertained  that 
persons  corresponding  to  the  names  registered  were  living  in 
these  houses,  and  thus  the  investigator  felt  satisfied,  not  think- 
ing to  ask  whether  these  persons  were  naturalized.  Another 
plan  was  to  have  unnaturalized  aliens  simply  register  on  the 
statement  that  they  were  native  born ;  when  asked  where,  they 
gave  some  other  state  in  the  union.  Statistics  have  been  so 
loosely  kept  that  it  is  impossible  to  disprove  this  statement,  even 
if  time  were  available  between  registration  and  election.  After 
election,  the  matter  is  dropped.  A  thoughtful  person  who  learns 
for  the  first  time  that  all  a  foreign-born  citizen  who  desires  to 
vote  as  a  native  born  has  to  do  is  to  make  a  statement  on  regis- 
tration day  that  he  is  a  native-born  citizen,  is  amazed  at  the 
effectiveness  of  the  answer.  Those  seeking  to  eradicate  these 
frauds  are  never  sure  that  they  have  discovered  all.  Experi- 


296  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

ence  has  taught  that  often  names  which  appear  to  represent 
genuine  voters  are  nothing  but  a  trick  more  clever  than  any  be- 
fore discovered. 

In  the  event  that  an  effort  is  made  to  arrest  and  convict  per- 
sons falsely  registering,  no  expense  or  plan  is  too  great  for  the 
producers  of  these  votes  to  undertake  in  an  endeavor  to  prevent 
a  conviction.  It  is  the  psychology  of  this  dastardly  business 
to  guarantee  protection  to  those  who  take  the  chances.  Low 
bail  in  the  first  instance  is  always  sought,  and  if  the  chances  for 
conviction  look  good,  the  bail  is  forfeited.  Another  favorite 
method  is  to  have  the  men  escape  by  the  inability  of  the  in- 
spectors to  identify  the  man  as  the  person  who  actually  at- 
tempted to  register.  If  a  conviction  is  secured,  a  persistent, 
determined  effort  is  made  to  obtain  a  pardon,  particularly  before 
the  next  election,  so  that  the  producers  of  the  vote  may  point  to 
the  pardon  as  their  guarantee  of  protection  before  asking  that 
the  same  chances  be  taken  in  the  next  election.  The  number  of 
pardons  of  the  producers  of  this  vote  is  astonishing,  and  the 
number  of  those  who  actually  escape  conviction  on  what  seems 
to  the  citizen  wholly  technical  defenses  is  more  astonishing. 

9.     THE  EFFECT  OF  VOTE  BUYING  ON  THE  VOTERS  1 

The  effect  of  vote  buying  is  not  confined  to  the  election 
returns  and  the  dishonest  party  manager  and  his  "  friends." 
Citizens  of  unquestioned  integrity  too  often  feel  that  if  money 
is  being  paid  for  voting  it  is  a  shame  to  let  the  rascals  get  it  all. 
Many  a  voter  sees  no  wrong  in  accepting  a  payment  of  "  car- 
fare" or  one  to  cover  "time  lost  in  voting." 

Before  we  can  find  remedies  for  the  corruption  of  the  ballot 
it  will  be  necessary  to  look  somewhat  carefully  into  the  causes 
of  the  corruption.  It  is  not  sufficient  to  say  that  the  corruption 
is  due  to  the  party  spirit  of  the  time,  or  to  our  form  of  ballot, 

>  Jenks,  J.  W.,  "  Money  in  Practical  Politics.  "  Century,  Vol.  44,  1892 ; 
p.  947. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  297 

or  to  any  other  one  or  more  of  such  external  causes ;  the  causes 
lie  deeper  than  that.  In  the  first  place,  so  long  as  we  have, 
practically,  universal  suffrage,  we  shall  always  find  many  voters 
who  are  ready  to  cast  their  votes  not  from  principle,  but  for 
their  own  pecuniary  interest,  though  this  number  is  smaller  than 
many  think.  A  large  part  of  the  "commercials"  are  paid  to 
vote  as  they  would  vote  without  bribery.  Not  till  the  mil- 
lenium  comes  can  we  expect  these  most  selfish  voters  to  refuse  to 
sell  their  votes,  if  the  opportunity  offers.  We  must  in  some  way 
make  it  for  the  interests  of  the  party  managers  not  to  attempt 
to  buy.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  whenever  an  election  is  close, 
and  "floaters"  stand  about,  waiting  for  bids,  the  temptation  is 
so  great  for  party  managers  to  buy,  in  order  to  secure  the  elec- 
tion of  their  candidates,  that  we  need  not  expect  the  practice  to 
stop,  unless  in  some  way,  as  said  above,  we  can  make  the  advan- 
tage to  be  gained  from  honesty  greater  than  that  to  be  gained 
from  dishonesty.  At  the  present  time,  under  our  present  laws, 
the  prize  is  so  great  and  the  risk  so  slight,  that  corruption  is 
sure  to  be  found  in  almost  every  close  district. 

At  the  present  time,  many  a  man  who  will  not  sell  his  vote  to 
the  opposite  party  will  nevertheless  ask  pay  for  his  time  on  elec- 
tion day.  From  this  receipt  of  his  expenses  in  bringing  himself 
and  his  workmen  to  the  polls,  bribery  is  made  easy.  The  man 
feels  that  he  is  not  selling  his  vote;  he  was  expecting  to  vote 
his  party  ticket  at  any  rate.  But  after  he  has  gone  thus  far  a 
number  of  times  he  loses  sight  of  the  real  purpose  for  which  he 
is  voting,  and  the  ballot  seems  to  be  cast  for  the  good,  not  of 
the  country,  but  of  the  candidate.  If  the  candidate  is  to  be 
benefited,  why  should  he  not  pay  for  the  benefit  ?  He  can  afford 
it.  Not  a  few  men,  seeing  money  going  freely  into  the  pockets 
of  "floaters,"  say  to  the  managers:  "If  money  is  so  plentiful, 
why  should  the  scoundrels  get  it  all  ?  Let  us  honest  partymen 
have  our  share.  Our  votes  are  worth  just  as  much  to  the  candi- 
dates." 

In  classes  of  university  students,  containing  from  ten  to  twenty 


298  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

voters,  more  than  once  I  have  found  several  —  from  five  to  ten 
—  who  had  received  from  campaign  managers  their  expenses 
home  from  college  to  cast  their  votes.  These  students  were  by 
no  means  common  "floaters" ;  their  votes  could  not  be  directly 
purchased  at  all.  But  still,  on  first  consideration,  many  of  them 
defend  the  payment  of  expenses  of  voters  by  their  own  party, 
when  they  are  unable  to  pay  them  themselves,  not  realizing  that 
this  is  but  a  covert  form  of  bribery,  and  that,  after  receiving 
expenses,  one  would  not  feel  at  liberty  to  vote  independently. 
If  people  as  intelligent  and  honest  as  are  college  students  of  vot- 
ing age  will  thus  thoughtlessly  encourage  corrupt  methods  of 
voting,  what  may  we  expect  from  the  "floater"? 

Another  cause  that  has  conduced  to  the  corruption  of  voters 
is  the  lack  of  distinct  issues  between  the  parties.  When  party 
feeling  is  very  strong,  as  in  our  country  at  the  time  of  the  Civil 
War,  when  most  of  the  masses  feel  that  upon  the  success  of  their 
party  depends  the  existence  of  their  country,  votes  will  not  be  so 
readily  sold;  relatively  speaking,  only  here  and  there  will  be 
found  a  man  whose  vote  is '  purchasable.  But  when  the  issues 
between  the  parties  are  not  sharply  drawn,  when  a  man  feels 
that  either  party's  success  is  of  slight  consequence,  it  is  much 
easier  to  secure  his  vote  by  purchase  without  any  consciousness 
on  his  part  of  corruption. 

10.     THE    POWER   OF   THE   UNITED   STATES   TO   REGULATE    ELEC- 
TIONS TO  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES  l 

Though  the  regulation  of  voting  is  primarily  left  to  the 
states  the  Federal  Government  exercises  an  important  degree  of 
control  through  its  ability  to  insure  the  purity  of  Congressional 
elections. 

Mr.  Justice  Bradley  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  court. 
The  petitioners  in  this  case  were  judges  of  election  at  dif- 
ferent voting  precincts  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  at  the  election 

lEx  parte  Siebold,  100  U.  S.  371,  1879  (excerpt). 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  299 

held  in  that  city  and  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  the  fifth  day 
of  November,  1878,  at  which  representatives  to  the  Forty-sixth 
Congress  were  voted  for. 

At  the  November  Term  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United 
States  for  the  District  of  Maryland,  an  indictment  against  each 
of  the  petitioners  was  found  in  said  court,  for  offences  alleged  to 
have  been  committed  by  them  respectively  at  their  respective 
precincts  whilst  being  such  judges  of  election ;  upon  which  in- 
dictments they  were  severally  tried,  convicted,  and  sentenced 
by  said  court  to  fine  and  imprisonment.  They  now  apply  to 
this  court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  be  relieved  from  im- 
prisonment. 

These  indictments  were  framed  partly  under  sect.  5515  and 
partly  under  sect.  5522  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United 
States;  and  the  principal  questions  raised  by  the  application 
are,  whether  those  sections,  and  certain  sections  of  the  title  of 
the  Revised  Statutes  relating  to  the  elective  franchise,  which 
they  are  intended  to  enforce,  are  within  the  constitutional  power 
of  Congress  to  enact.  .  . 

Congress  has  partially  regulated  the  subject  heretofore.  In 
1842,  it  passed  a  law  for  the  election  of  representatives  by  separ- 
ate districts;  and,  subsequently,  other  laws  fixing  the  time  of 
election,  and  directing  that  the  elections  shall  be  by  ballot.  No 
one  will  pretend,  at  least  at  the  present  day,  that  these  laws  were 
unconstitutional  because  they  only  partially  covered  the  sub- 
ject. .  , 

The  State  may  make  regulations  on  the  subject ;  Congress 
may  make  regulations  on  the  same  subject,  or  may  alter  or  add 
to  those  already  made.  The  paramount  character  of  those  made 
by  Congress  has  the  effect  to  supersede  those  made  by  the  State, 
so  far  as  the  two  are  inconsistent,  and  no  farther.  There  is  no 
such  conflict  between  them  as  to  prevent  their  forming  a  har- 
monious system  perfectly  capable  of  being  administered  and 
carried  out  as  such. 


300  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

As  to  the  supposed  incompatibility  of  independent  sanctions 
and  punishments  imposed  by  the  two  governments,  for  the  en- 
forcement of  the  duties  required  of  the  officers  of  election,  and 
for  their  protection  in  the  performance  of  those  duties,  the  same 
considerations  apply.  While  the  State  will  retain  the  power  of 
enforcing  such  of  its  own  regulations  as  are  not  superseded  by 
those  adopted  by  Congress,  it  cannot  be  disputed  that  if  Con- 
gress has  power  to  make  regulations  it  must  have  the  power  to 
enforce  them,  not  only  by  punishing  the  delinquency  of  officers 
appointed  by  the  United  States,  but  by  restraining  and  punish- 
ing those  who  attempt  to  interfere  with  them  in  the  performance 
of  their  duties ;  and  if,  as  we  have  shown,  Congress  may  revise 
existing  regulations,  and  add  to  or  alter  the  same  as  far  as  it 
deems  expedient,  there  can  be  as  little  question  that  it  may  im- 
pose additional  penalties  for  the  prevention  of  frauds  committed 
by  the  State  officers  in  the  elections,  or  for  their  violation  of  any 
duty  relating  thereto,  whether  arising  from  the  common  law  or 
from  any  other  law,  State  or  National.  Why  not?  Penalties 
for  fraud  and  delinquency  are  part  of  the  regulations  belonging 
to  the  subject.  If  Congress,  by  its  power  to  make  or  alter  the 
regulations,  has  a  general  supervisory  power  over  the  whole  sub- 
ject, what  is  there  to  preclude  it  from  imposing  additional  sanc- 
tions and  penalties  to  prevent  such  fraud  and  delinquency  ? 

It  is  objected  that  Congress  has  no  power  to  enforce  State 
laws  or  to  punish  State  officers,  and  especially  has  no  power  to 
punish  them  for  violating  the  laws  of  their  own  State.  As  a 
general  proposition,  this  is  undoubtedly  true ;  but  when,  in  the 
performance  of  their  functions,  State  officers  are  called  upon  to 
fulfil  duties  which  they  owe  to  the  United  States  as  well  as  to 
the  State,  has  the  former  no  means  of  compelling  such  fulfilment  ? 
Yet  that  is  the  case  here.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  States  to  elect 
representatives  to  Congress.  The  due  and  fair  election  of  these 
representatives  is  of  vital  importance  to  the  United  States.  The 
government  of  the  United  States  is  no  less  concerned  in  the  trans- 
action than  the  State  government  is.  It  certainly  is  not  bound 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  301 

to  stand  by  as  a  passive  spectator,  when  duties  are  violated  and 
outrageous  frauds  are  committed.  It  is  directly  interested  in 
the  faithful  performance,  by  the  officers  of  election,  of  their  re- 
spective duties.  Those  duties  are  owed  as  well  to  the  United 
States  as  to  the  State.  This  necessarily  follows  from  the  mixed 
character  of  the  transaction,  —  State  and  National.  A  viola- 
tion of  duty  is  an  offense  against  the  United  States,  for  which 
the  offender  is  justly  amenable  to  that  government.  No  official 
position  can  shelter  him  from  this  responsibility.  In  view  of 
the  fact  that  Congress  has  plenary  and  paramount  jurisdiction 
over  the  whole  subject,  it  seems  almost  absurd  to  say  that  an 
officer  who  receives  or  has  custody  of  the  ballots  given  for  a  repre- 
sentative owes  no  duty  to  the  national  government  which  Con- 
gress can  enforce;  or  that  an  officer  who  stuffs  the  ballot-box 
cannot  be  made  amenable  to  the  United  States.  If  Congress 
has  not,  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  present  laws,  imposed  any 
penalties  to  prevent  and  punish  frauds  and  violations  of  duty 
committed  by  officers  of  election,  it  has  been  because  the  exi- 
gency has  not  been  deemed  sufficient  to  require  it,  and  not  be- 
cause Congress  had  not  the  requisite  power.  .  . 

The  counsel  for  the  petitioners  concede  that  Congress  may, 
if  it  sees  fit,  assume  the  entire  control  and  regulation  of  the  elec- 
tion of  representatives.  This  would  necessarily  involve  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  places  for  holding  the  polls,  the  times  of  voting, 
and  the  officers  for  holding  the  election;  it  would  require  the 
regulation  of  the  duties  to  be  performed,  the  custody  of  the  bal- 
lots, the  mode  of  ascertaining  the  result,  and  every  other  matter 
relating  to  the  subject.  Is  it  possible  that  Congress  could  not, 
in  that  case,  provide  for  keeping  the  peace  at  such  elections,  and 
for  arresting  and  punishing  those  guilty  of  breaking  it  ?  If  it  could 
not,  its  power  would  be  but  a  shadow  and  a  name.  But,  if  Con- 
gress can  do  this,  where  is  the  difference  in  principle  in  its  making 
provision  for  securing  the  preservation  of  the  peace,  so  as  to  give 
to  every  citizen  his  free  right  to  vote  without  molestation  or  in- 
jury, when  it  assumes  only  to  supervise  the  regulations  made  by 


302  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  State,  and  not  to  supersede  them  entirely?  In  our  judg- 
ment, there  is  no  difference ;  and,  if  the  power  exists  in  the  one 
case  it  exists  in  the  other.1 


II.     PUBLICITY  OF  CAMPAIGN  CONTRIBUTIONS 

The  last  twenty  years  have  seen  the  development  of  a  cam- 
paign to  force  the  letting  in  of  light  upon  the  methods  and  re- 
sources of  our  party  organizations.  The  legislation  secured  for 
this  purpose  constantly  increases  in  definiteness.  Even  parti- 
sanship if  forced  to  fight  in  the  open  must  confine  itself,  for  its 
support  to  sources  of  income  which  the  public  conscience  will 
approve. 

New  York  led  in  the  movement  for  publicity  proper  with  a 
law  passed  in  1890  (ch.  94),  requiring  candidates  to  file  state- 
ments for  their  expenditures.  This  act  was  very  ineffective,  no 
publicity  being  required  for  the  expenses  of  election  committees. 
Most  of  the  laws  subsequently  passed  have  brought  campaign 
committees  as  well  as  candidates  specifically  under  regulation. 
By  the  end  of  1908,  more  than  twenty  states  altogether  had 
taken  some  action  looking  toward  the  publicity  of  expenditures. 
The  earlier  laws  of  this  character  were  very  loosely  drawn.  In 
many  cases  they  simply  required  "statements,"  and  the  results 
obtained  were  distinguished  chiefly  by  gross  inadequacy  and 
heterogeneity.  Later  statutes  and  amendments,  however,  have 
fixed  the  form  of  reports,  precisely,  itemizing  them  in  consider- 
able detail.  Wisconsin,  for  example,  furnishes  blanks  especially 
prepared  for  this  purpose.  Vouchers  for  all  sums  exceeding  five 
or  ten  dollars  are  required  in  a  number  of  states.  Publicity  of 
receipts  is  not  so  commonly  prescribed  as  publicity  of  expendi- 
tures. Reports  of  contributions  were  first  required  by  Colorado 
and  Michigan  in  1891,  followed  by  Massachusetts  in  1892,  Cali- 

1See  also  ex  parte  Yarbrough,  no  U.S.  651,  1884. 
2  Brooks,  R.  C,  Corruption  in  American  Politics  and  Life.    Dodd,  Mead 
and  Co.,  New  York,  1910;  pp.  229-237. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  303 

forma  in  1894,  Arizona  in  1895,  and  Ohio  in  1896.  Repeals  of 
the  laws  first  passed  in  Ohio  and  Michigan  indicate  that  they 
were  somewhat  ahead  of  public  sentiment  at  the  time,  although 
they  would  hardly  be  so  regarded  now.  In  this  connection  the 
New  York  law  of  1906  (ch.  502),  was  an  event  of  first  class  im- 
portance. It  compels  political  committees  to  file  detailed  state- 
ments of  receipts  as  well  as  expenditures,  and  provides  for  judi- 
cial investigation  to  enforce  correct  statements.  The  great 
weight  of  the  name  of  the  Empire  State  is  thus  placed  squarely 
behind  the  demand  for  real  publicity  of  receipts.  Under  this 
act,  voluntarily  accepted  by  the  national  chairmen  in  1908,  pub- 
licity was  given  to  the  finances  of  a  presidential  campaign  for 
the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  country. 

In  the  national  field  the  nearest  approach  to  legislation  pre- 
scribing publicity  for  campaign  contributions  was  made  by  a 
bill  (H.R.,  20112)  introduced  into  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  igoS.1  Briefly  this  bill  covered  both  expenditures  and  con- 
tributions of  the  national  and  the  congressional  campaign  com- 
mittees of  all  parties,  and  of  "all  committees,  associations,  or 
organizations  which  shall  in  two  or  more  states  influence  the  re- 
sult or  attempt  to  influence  the  result  of  an-  election  at  which 
Representatives  in  Congress  are  to  be  elected."  Treasurers  of 
such  committees  were  required  to  file  itemized  detailed  statements 
with  the  Clerk  of  the  House  of  Representatives  "not  more  than 
fifteen  days  and  not  less  than  ten  days  before  an  election",  and  also 
final  reports  within  thirty  days  after  such  elections.  These  state- 
ments were  to  include  the  names  and  addresses  of  contributors 
of  $100  or  more,  the  total  of  contributions  under  $100,  disburse- 
ments exceeding  $10  in  detail,  and  the  total  of  disbursements  of 
less  amount.  The  bill  also  contained  provisions,  which  will  be 
referred  to  later,  designed  to  cover  the  use  of  money  by  persons 
or  associations  other  than  those  mentioned  above.  Unfortu- 

1  A  step  in  advance  has  now  been  made  in  the  act  for  publicity  of 
campaign  contributions  passed  by  Congress  in  1911.  (Public,  No.  32. 
Approved  August  19,  1911.) 


304  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

nately  a  provision  was  tacked  on  to  the  foregoing  raising  the  ques- 
tion of  the  restriction  of  colored  voting  in  the  South  and  hinting 
at  a  reappointment  of  congressional  representation  under  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution.  As  a  consequence 
an  embittered  opposition  was  made  by  the  Democrats  who 
charged  that  the  latter  provision  was  deliberately  introduced  in 
bad  faith  with  the  intention  of  making  the  passage  of  the  bill 
impossible.  In  the  house  it  was  carried  by  a  solid  Republican 
vote  of  161  in  its  favour  to  126  Democratic  votes  in  opposition, 
but  was  allowed  to  expire  in  the  Senate  Committee  on  Privileges 
and  Elections  for  fear  that  it  would  become  the  object  of  a  Demo- 
cratic filibuster. 

Whatever  may  be  the  merits  of  the  proposal  to  readjust  con- 
gressional representation  it  is  clearly  a  question  which  is  logi- 
cally separable  from  that  of  campaign  contributions.  If 
this  separation  is  effected  there  would  seem  to  be  reason  to  hope 
that  a  publicity  bill  similar  in  its  main  outlines  to  that  of  1908 
can  pass  Congress.  While  a  platform  plank  of  this  sort  was 
voted  down  in  the  Republican  National  Convention  of  that  year, 
Mr.  Taft  in  his  speech  of  acceptance  said : 

If  I  am  elected  President  I  shall  urge  upon  Congress,  with 
every  hope  of  success,  that  a  law  be  passed  requiring  a  filing  in 
a  Federal  office  of  a  statement  of  the  contributions  received  by 
committees  and  candidates  in  elections  for  members  of  Congress, 
and  in  such  other  elections  as  are  constitutionally  within  the 
control  of  Congress. 

The  manoeuvring  for  position  between  the  parties  in  1908  which 
resulted  in  the  voluntary  acceptance  by  each  of  high  standards 
of  publicity  is  too  fresh  in  the  public  mind  to  require  rehearsal 
here.  For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  presidential  elections 
some  definite  information  was  made  available  regarding  cam- 
paign finances.  The  Republican  National  Committee  reported 
contributions  of  $1,035,368.27.  This  sum,  however,  does  not 
include  $620,150  collected  in  the  several  states  by  the  finance 
committees  of  the  Republican  National  Committee  and  turned 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  305 

over  by  them  to  their  respective  state  committees.  The  Demo- 
cratic National  Committee  reported  contributions  amounting 
to  $620,644.77.  The  list  of  contributors  to  the  Republican  Na- 
tional Fund  contained  12,330  names.  The  Democratic  National 
Committee  filed  a  "list  of  over  250,000  names  representing  over 
100,000  contributors  who  contributed  through  newspapers, 
clubs,  solicitors,  and  other  organizations,  whose  names  are  on 
file  in  the  office  of  the  chairman  of  the  Democratic  National 
Committee  at  Buffalo." 

On  many  points,  unfortunately,  the  two  reports,  while  defi- 
nite to  a  degree  hitherto  unknown,  are  not  strictly  comparable. 
Some  species  of  " uniform  accounting"  applicable  to  this  subject 
is  manifestly  necessary  before  any  detailed  investigation  can  be 
undertaken.  One  big  fact  stands  out  with  sufficient  clearness, 
however,  namely  that  the  national  campaign  of  1908  was  waged 
at  a  money  cost  far  below  that  of  the  three  preceding  cam- 
paigns. 

Basing  his  estimate  upon  what  is  said  to  have  been  spent  in 
1896, 1900,  and  1904,  Mr.  F.  A.  Ogg  placed  the  total  cost  of  a 
presidential  election  to  both  parties,  including  the  state  and  local 
contests  occurring  at  the  same  time,  at  $15,000,000.  One- third 
to  one-half  of  this  enormous  sum,  in  his  opinion,  must  be  at- 
tributed to  the  presidential  campaign  proper.  Compared  with 
this  estimate  of  from  five  to  seven  and  a  half  millions  the  rela- 
tively modest  total  of  something  more  than  two  and  a  quarter 
millions  shown  by  the  figures  of  1908  must  be  counted  a  strong 
argument  in  favour  of  publicity. 

The  most  important  single  issue  raised  by  the  policies  of  the 
two  parties  during  the  last  presidential  campaign  was  that  of 
publicity  before  or  after  election.  Early  in  the  campaign  the 
Democratic  National  Committee  decided  to  publish  on  or  before 
October  i5th  all  individual  contributions  in  excess  of  $100; 
contributions  received  subsequent  to  that  date  to  be  published 
on  the  day  of  their  receipt.  Following  the  principle  of  the  New 
York  law  both  parties  made  post-election  statements.  It  is 
x 


306  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

manifest  that  complete  statements  of  expenditures,  or  for  that 
matter  of  contributions  as  well,  can  be  made  only  after  election. 
Every  thorough  provision  for  publicity  must,  therefore,  require 
post-election  reports.  Shall  preliminary  statements  also  be 
required?  As  against  the  latter  it  is  urged  that  contributors 
whose  motives  are  of  the  highest  character  will  be  deterred  by 
the  fear  of  savage  partisan  criticism.  If  publicity  is  delayed 
until  after  the  election  campaign  bitterness  will  have  subsided 
and  a  juster  view  of  the  whole  situation  will  be  possible.  In 
favour  of  publicity  before  the  election  it  is  said  that  two  main 
ends  are  aimed  at  by  all  legislation  of  this  sort ;  —  first  to  pre- 
vent the  collection  and  expenditure  of  enormous  sums  for  the 
bribery  of  voters  and  other  corrupt  purposes,  and,  second,  by 
revealing  the  source  of  campaign  funds  to  make  it  difficult  or 
impossible  for  the  victorious  party  to  carry  out  corrupt  bargains 
into  which  it  may  have  entered  in  order  to  obtain  large  contribu- 
tions. Publicity  after  the  election  will,  indeed,  serve  the  second 
of  these  ends,  but  publicity  before  would  be  much  more  effective 
in  preventing  corrupt  collection  and  expenditure  of  funds. 
Moreover  it  might  prevent  the  victory  of  the  party  pursuing 
such  a  policy  and  thus,  by  keeping  it  out  of  power,  render  it  in- 
capable of  paying  by  governmental  favour  for  its  contributions. 

12.     THE   CAMPAIGN  WAR  CHEST1 

The  extent  to  which  the  evil  of  unrestrained  contributions 
may  grow  is  illustrated  by  the  experience  of  New  York 
City.  Both  parties  must  be  helped  whenever  the  "interest"  is 
one  which  can  be  damaged  by  hostile  legislation  or  administra- 
tive action.  Candidates  are  chosen  with  an  eye  to  what  they 
can  contribute  or  they  are  forced  to  give  far  beyond  what  their 
private  means  would  justify.  The  temptation  to  go  where  the 
largest  amounts  may  be  obtained  makes  the  party  depend  for 
its  financial  support  on  a  class,  not  on  the  people.  Conversely 
the  idea  that  the  party  coffers  are  full  cuts  down  the  willingness 

1  Carr,  J.  F.,  "  Campaign  Funds  and  Campaign  Scandals."  Outlook, 
Nov.  4,  1905. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  307 

of  the  citizens  to  do  party  work  except  for  reasons  other  than 
principles. 

License  to  grab  from  the  t dough-bag'  has  become  an  in- 
alienable birthright  for  the  smaller  grafters.  Every  man  who 
renders  a  service  is  a  voter.  He  must  always  be  paid  more  than 
his  labor  is  worth,  and  his  labor  is  often  worth  a  great  deal.  A 
bill-poster  who  toils  all  night  and  all  the  day  Sunday  pasting  his 
flash-bills  on  barrels  and  dead-walls  is  entitled  to  a  high  extra 
wage.  But  no  ordinary  excess  rate  is  sufficient.  An  enthusi- 
astic spirit  of  gratitude  must  be  awakened  in  the  man,  if  the  fires 
of  party  patriotism  are  to  blaze  brightly.  Extravagant  expec- 
tations are  universal,  extravagent  demands  of  hourly  occurrence. 
Worse  still,  almost  every  kind  of  helper  and  worker,  down  to 
the  smallest  messenger-boy,  acts  as  if  the  money  in  the  party 
chest  did  not  represent  honest  labor  or  honest  saving  of  any  kind, 
and  as  if  it  properly  belonged  to  any  one  clever  enough  to  lay 
hands  on  it.  It  is  'honest  graft/  and  human  rapacity  grows 
vulture-like.  For  our  greatest  city  election,  extravagance  be- 
comes such  profligacy  of  expenditure  that  for  each  of  the  last 
three  mayoralty  campaigns  in  New  York  it  is  estimated  that  all 
parties  spent  more  than  $800,000 ;  and  yet  Mr.  Plunkitt,  in  the 
fullness  of  knowledge,  declares,  'There's  never  been  half  enough 
money  to  go  around.'  .  . 

How  are  these  lavishly  spent  funds  actually  raised  in  this  year 
of  grace  1905?  And  with  what  abuses?  Every  one  knows 
that  by  far  the  heaviest  contributors  are  pecuniarily  interested 
individuals  and  corporations.  Their  assistance  has  gradually 
grown,  and  only  gradually  are  its  consequences  seen.  In  the 
sixties  political  contests  were  chiefly  supported  by  a  multitude 
of  small  contributors.  It  was  a  simple  and  democratic  way  — 
a  help  and  not  a  hindrance  to  popular  representative  govern- 
ment. To-day  the  small  contributor  has  almost  entirely  es- 
caped his  duty,  and  our  Assemblymen,  Congressmen,  and  State 
and  National  Senators  are  so  often  the  blind  agents  of  'bosses' 


308  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

and  corporations  that  many  a  time  the  alarmist  seems  to  utter 
only  sober  sense  when  he  cries  excitedly  that  our  representative 
institutions  are  in  danger. 

A  new  organization  of  political  parties,  with  up-to-date  busi- 
ness-like methods  of  plunder,  became  inevitable  whenever  in 
the  States  and  cities  they  sold  themselves  for  the  money  they 
needed  to  live  the  new,  extravagant  political  life.  Just  as  inevi- 
table was  the  creation  of  the  'boss,'  a  man  of  undisputed  and 
irresponsible  power,  unscrupulous  and  able  in  intriguing  for  pat- 
ronage and  collecting  money.  No  two  of  our  'bosses'  are  alike 
either  in  manners,  methods,  or  even  in  organizing  power,  but 
they  all  have  the  masterful  gift  of  the  highwayman.  ...  As 
the  necessity  for  secrecy  makes  the  'boss'  inevitable,  so  it  is  the 
big  unavowed  contribution,  buying  or  trying  to  buy  an  unfair 
privilege,  that  makes  the  all-round  'square  deal'  impossible. 

Neither  political  sentiment,  nor  principles,  nor  even  party 
bigotry  really  determines  the  majority  of  these  large  political 
gifts.  Such  contributions  are  usually  considered  as  purely  'a 
business  proposition.'  The  saloon-keeper  thinks  of  his  as  a 
kind  of  extra-legal  license  to  sell  liquor  at  forbidden  hours.  The 
contractor  who  habitually  infringes  the  building  law  pays  his  as 
a  bribe  of  silence.  The  placeman,  as  a  feudal  tenant,  reluctantly 
hands  his  out  like  ancient  scutage,  or  shield  money.  For  others 
the  pay  is  blackmail,  or  a  hold-up,  or  a  ransom  extorted  by  ban- 
dits, or  a  form  of  life  or  accident  insurance.  The  immediate 
purpose  of  such  gifts  may  be  winning  favor  or  avoiding  trouble, 
but  the  ultimate  object  is  making  or  saving  money.  An  official 
of  a  small  railroad  interest  that  enters  New  York  City  once  told 
me  that  his  company  made  a  practice  of  sending  $5,000  to  Tam- 
many at  the  beginning  of  each  campaign.  'We  often  have  to 
ask  favors,'  he  said,  'and  it  puts  us  on  a  friendly  footing 
with  influential  people  in  the  Hall.  It  is  true  that  we  have 
to  pay  separately  for  our  privileges  when  we  get  them,  but 
it  saves  us  money  in  the  end.  Last  year,  when  we  needed  to* 
run  some  tracks  across  an  out-of-the-way  avenue '  —  and  he 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  309 

named  the  place  —  'they  made  us  give  up  $30,000,  but  it 
would  have  cost  us  double  that  if  we  hadn't  had  a  backer  in  the 
Wigwam.' 

Gifts  are  often  made  to  both  parties  by  the  same  donor,  and 
contributing  corporations  calculate  with  some  nicety  the  power 
of  politicians  to  help  or  injure  them.  In  a  recent  campaign 
there  was  a  close  contest  in  one  of  the  New  Jersey  counties,  and, 
certain  that  he  could  control  the  local  election  if  he  had  aid,  the 
Chairman  of  the  Democratic  County  Committee  appealed  for 
large  financial  help  to  ex-Senator  Smith,  the  'boss'  of  the  Jersey 
Democracy.  The  ex-Senator  could  not  grant  the  full  demand, 
and  felt  obliged  to  give  some  explanation  of  present  Democratic 
poverty  in  New  Jersey.  He  said  that  there  was  a  time  when 
the  State  was  in  the  doubtful  column  and  Democrats  and  Re- 
publicans had  an  almost  equal  chance  of  success,  that  the 
Pennsylvania  Railroad  Company  treated  the  Democrats  almost 
as  handsomely  as  its  Republican  favorites,  but  that  ever  since 
Bryan's  overwhelming  defeat  in  1896,  as  the  Democrats  had  not 
the  slightest  chance  of  carrying  the  State,  the  Pennsylvania  had 
not  only  cut  off  all  its  bounties  to  the  Democratic  fund,  but,  with 
all  the  privileges  it  needed  and  fearing  no  Democratic  competi- 
tion in  legislative  demands,  it  had  greatly  reduced  the  amount 
which  it  formerly  gave  the  Republicans.  Could  'a  business 
proposition '  be  more  clearly  stated  ?  The  two  parties  have 
several  hundred  important  treasuries,  National,  State,  and  muni- 
cipal. Into  them  these  gifts  are  cast  more  or  less  stealthily, 
and  no  one  can  estimate  their  huge  gross  annual  amount.  Some 
are  criminal;  some  are  probably  recoverable  by  stockholders 
through  civil  process ;  they  are  nearly  all  dishonorable  to  both 
giver  and  receiver. 

Then  there  are  the  donations  from  candidates,  which  are  al- 
ways '  appreciated '  —  a  gentle  word  that  often  cloaks  an  im- 
perious demand.  No  law  prevents  the  voluntary  gift,  and  when 
a  man  runs  for  office  his  supporters  usually  think  that  he  ought 
to  pay  a  good  share  of  the  election  expenses.  The  candidate  is 


jio  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

as  frequently  of  an  opposite  opinion.  I  have  heard  the  case 
warmly  put  in  a  district  club.  An  upright  and  uncanting  polit- 
ical amateur  said:  'We  are  working  for  what  we  believe  in. 
Mack  should  give  all  he  can  afford  to  give.  He  is  in  earnest 
enough  to  head  this  fight  and  devote  all  his  time  to  it.  Besides, 
it's  partly  for  the  gratification  of  his  ambition . '  That  is  the  argu- 
ment in  a  nutshell,  and  from  that  point  to  suggesting  the  duty 
of  contribution  is  but  a  step,  and  a  slightly  longer  second  step  to 
the  exaction  of  money  as  a  condition  of  nomination.  .  . 

The  objections  to  these  bargained  or  unbargained  assessments 
of  candidates  are  so  serious  that  they  should  be  altogether  pro- 
hibited by  law.  They  create  an  undue  advantage  in  favor  of 
men  of  wealth  as  against  men  of  character  and  ability,  and  they 
mean  that  many  young  men  mortgage  their  whole  public  future 
for  the  help  which  they  receive  at  the  outset  of  their  political 
career,  when  they  incur  obligations  which  they  can  pay  only  by 
prostituting  their  official  positions. 

But  a  far  graver  abuse,  that  has  become  a  National  scandal, 
is  the  assessment  of  office-holders.  .  .  The  opportunities 
for  wringing  this  despicably  mean  toll  from  the  most  poorly  paid 
of  the  Government's  servants  are  almost  boundless,  for  there 
are  about  280,000  men  and  women  in  the  classified  Civil  Service, 
receiving  salaries  reaching  a  total  each  year  of  $175,000,000  — 
an  annual  wage  of  only  $625  for  each  employee. 

Everywhere  campaign  committees  send  their  requests  for 
subscriptions  to  subordinate  Federal  office-holders.  Their  terms 
are  almost  invariably  polite,  and  they  assume  that  the  contribu- 
tion is  to  be  wholly  voluntary.  But  these  casual  printed  or 
typewritten  appeals  are  understood  by  the  Government  em- 
ployees to  be  perfectly  definite  orders  to  contribute  or  suffer 
the  consequences.  Many  would  resist  the  injustice  of  such  a 
demand,  but  they  believe  that  to  do  so  would  be  to  quarrel  with 
their  bread  and  butter.  On  the  whole,  perhaps  the  notion  is 
absurd,  but  every  department  can  furnish  a  few  examples  which 
lend  color  to  the  belief  that  complaint  to  the  authorities  is  dan- 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  311 

gerous.  Besides,  there  is  a  spirit  abroad  in  the  service  that  holds 
such  an  act  treason.  But  the  call  is  not  always  gently  veiled; 
it  often  becomes  a  peremptory  demand.  Some  of  the  cases  in 
the  last  campaign  were  flagrant.  In  Kentucky  postal  clerks 
and  other  employees  of  the  Rural  Free  Delivery  were  by  letter 
ordered  to  stand  and  deliver  in  the  following  fashion:  'The 
position  you  hold  in  the  party  shows  your  active  interest  in  its 
principles  and  policies  and  your  desire  for  its  success.  We  there- 
fore confidently  expect  aid  from  you  and  hope  to  receive  a  liberal 
contribution  for  the  legitimate  purpose  only  of  paying  the  ex- 
penses of  our  organization.  We  trust  your  contribution  will 
not  be  less  than  $70.'  The  Chairman  of  the  Iowa  Republican 
State  Committee  sent  a  letter  to  each  lowan  in  the  classified 
service  in  Washington,  requesting  what  he  called  'the  surrender 
of  an  equitable  part  of  the  salary  you  are  receiving  from  the  Gov- 
ernment,' and  he  defined  the  'equitable  part'  to  be  three  per 
cent,  of  the  clerk's  salary. 

The  law  of  the  land  does  not  forbid  office-holders  to  contribute 
to  campaign  funds,  if  they  wish  to  do  so.  It  merely  prohibits 
one  office-holder  from  approaching  another  with  such'  a  demand, 
and  no  one  is  permitted  to  solicit  political  contributions  in  a  Fed- 
eral building.  It  is  an  easy  matter  to  evade  a  lax  law,  and  so 
little  legal  evidence  sufficiently  definite  to  warrant  a  prosecution 
is  ever  laid  before  the  Civil  Service  Commission  that  prosecu- 
tions are  rarely  begun.  .  . 

These  methods  of  filling  party  coffers  are  in  general  use  to- 
day in  the  present  State  and  municipal  campaigns.  By  the  tens  of 
thousands  such  letters  and  circulars  are  now  being  sent  out  from 
political  headquarters.  They  take  many  forms.  One  will  begin 
with  a  covert  threat:  'I  am  directed  on  behalf  of  the  Finance 
Committee — .'  Another,  typewritten  and  in  the  usual  style 
giving  among  names  of  the  Finance  Committee  four  city  officials, 
is,  in  defiance  of  law,  sent  to  hundreds  of  place-holders.  The 
Chairman  claims  that  he  did  not  know  that  the  addresses  were 
city  employees.  A  third  typewritten  letter  is  signed  with  a  rub- 


312  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

her  stamp,  and,  in  absence  of  proof  that  its  use  was  authorized, 
prosecution  is  impossible.  .  . 

Our  present  way  of  financing  campaigns  has  become  a  part  of 
the  political  system  of  the  land.  A  private  individual  is  now 
rarely  asked  for  a  contribution,  and  the  money  gifts  of  disin- 
terested citizens  have  dwindled  until  they  are  an  entirely  negli- 
gible source  of  revenue.  Now  and  again  a  reform  movement  is 
so  supported,  but  even  in  such  cases  by  far  the  largest  part  of 
the  fund  raised  is  supplied  by  a  small  number  of  wealthy  men, 
who  thus  exert  an  influence  out  of  all  proportion  to  their  num- 
bers on  the  policies  of  parties.  They  are  often  full  of  self-sacri- 
fice and  noble  ideals,  but  because  they  are  out  of  sympathy  with 
the  great  mass  of  the  people  for  whom  they  labor,  they  are  con- 
tinually building  on  sand.  The  days  of  the  rank  and  file  sub- 
scriptions of  $2  and  $5  seem  gone  forever.  Men  punctually  pay 
as  a  matter  of  course  for  the  support  of  their  churches,  clubs, 
benefit  societies,  and  newspapers ;  and  they  should  do  the  same 
for  their  political  parties.  But  a  generation  has  grown  up  with 
an  idea  that  a  party  should  be  self-supporting.  Yet  political 
parties  are  not  wealth-producers,  and  they  are  fast  reaching  a 
point,  even  Nationally,  where  they  can  maintain  themselves 
only  by  selling,  or  pretending  to  sell,  a  part  of  the  public  rights 
of  which  they  are  the  custodians  through  the  officers  whom  they 
elect.  The  politicians  to  a  man  are  skeptical  of  the  possibility 
of  supporting  a  political  campaign  by  popular  contributions, 
and  their  cynicism  completes  the  despairing  side  of  the  picture. 
Privately  their  scoffing  is  voluble  —  there  is  no  way  but  the 
present  way,  and  that  is  the  best  of  all  possible  ways.  Publicly 
they  are  silent  or  noncommittal.  .  . 

But  a  politician  sees  the  worst  side  of  human  nature,  and, 
like  a  policeman,  is  a  bad  judge  of  the  morals  of  the  common  run 
of  men.  There  are  two  hopes  for  the  future,  and  both  are  bright. 
There  is  a  remarkable  revival  of  civic  righteousness  sweeping 
over  the  land  that  is  awakening  men  to  a  loftier  conception  of 
their  duties  as  citizens.  With  this  an  aroused  public  sentiment 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  313 

already  demands  the  enactment  of  a  law  against  corporate  con- 
tributions. When  political  managers  feel  the  pinch  of  this  le- 
gally enforced  poverty,  they  will  be  driven  to  appeal  to  the 
pocket  of  the  individual  voter.  Plunkitt  in  his  wrath  against 
the  Civil  Service  blurted  out  a  deeper  truth  than  he  knew  of 
when  he  said  that  a  political  organization  is  like  a  church.  'It 
does  missionary  work  like  a  church,  it's  got  big  expenses,  and 
it's  got  to  be  supported  by  the  faithful.'  The  churches  that  are 
maintained  by  small  voluntary  contributions  from  thousands  of 
worshipers  are  living,  growing  realities.  Those  whose  support 
comes  from  endowments  and  the  donations  of  a  few  wealthy 
communicants  have  already  lost  their  usefulness.  The  'boss' 
is  the  man  who  can  procure  the  'dough,'  and  the  autocracy  that 
he  has  founded  among  us  has  its  origin  in  the  failure  of  citizens 
not  only  to  exercise  their  political  rights,  but  to  furnish  the  money 
for  the  absolutely  necessary  expenses  of  their  political  parties. 
Representation  without  taxation  is  becoming  fully  as  great  a 
wrong  as  taxation  without  representation. 

A  renewal  of  the  old  custom  of  small  contributions  for  a  cam- 
paign would  give  a  different  quality  to  the  fund,  and  induce  re- 
spect for  it.  An  honest  subscription  for  a  legitimate  purpose, 
it  could  no  longer  be  looked  upon  as  ' honest  graft,'  and  economy 
of  expenditure  and  public  accounting  would  follow.  Fifteen 
million  dollars  is  probably  the  wildest  estimate  that  has  been 
placed  on  the  immediate  cost  of  the  last  Presidential  campaign. 
Yet  this  amounts  to  but  $1.11  for  each  elector.  A  fifty-cent 
piece  from  every  voter  would  more  than  cover  every  lawful  ex- 
pense of  a  campaign,  and  go  far  toward  freeing  both  parties 
from  the  evil  influence  of  'bosses'  and  corporations. 


314  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

13.     CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  AND  PUBLICITY1 

One  of  the  most  interesting  attempts  to  put  down  the  evil 
of  excessive  party  expenditures  is  the  expedient  adopted  by 
Oregon  to  fix  the  cost  of  running  for  office. 

The  corrupt  practices  act  was  adopted  under  the  initiative 
in  1908  by  popular  vote  of  54,042  to  31,301.  It  provides  that  no 
candidate  for  office  shall  expend  in  his  campaign  for  nomination 
more  than  15  per  cent  of  one  year's  compensation  of  the  office 
for  which  he  is  a  candidate,  provided  that  no  candidate  shall  be 
restricted  to  less  than  $100. 

Publicity  Pamphlet 

(The  act  provides,  however,  for  the  publication  of  a  pamphlet 
by  the  secretary  of  state  for  the  information  of  voters,  in  which 
pamphlet  a  candidate  in  the  primary  campaign  may  have  pub- 
lished a  statement  setting  forth  his  qualifications,  the  principles 
and  policies  he  advocates  and  favors,  or  any  other  matter  he 
may  wish  to  submit  in  support  of  his  candidacy.  Each  candi- 
date must  pay  for  at  least  one  page,  the  amount  to  be  paid  vary- 
ing from  $100  for  the  highest  office  to  $10  for  the  minor  offices. 
Every  candidate  may  secure  the  use  of  additional  pages  at  $100 
per  page,  not  exceeding  three  additional  pages.)  Any  person 
may  use  space  in  this  pamphlet  in  opposition  to  any  candidate, 
the  matter  submitted  by  him  being  first  served  upon  the  candi- 
date and  the  space  being  paid  for  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  candi- 
dates. The  matter  submitted  in  opposition  to  candidates  must 
be  signed  by  the  author,  who  is  subject  to  the  general  laws  re- 
garding slander  and  libel.  Information  regarding  state  and 
congressional  candidates  is  printed  in  a  pamphlet  issued  by  the 
secretary  of  state,  one  copy  being  mailed  to  each  registered  voter 
in  the  State.  Pamphlets  regarding  county  candidates  are  issued 
by  the  county  clerk  and  mailed  to  each  voter  in  the  county. 

1  Bourne,  Jr. ,  J. ,  Speech  in  the  United  States  Senate.    Thurs . ,  May  5, 
p.  13  et  seq.  (pam.). 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  315 

These  pamphlets  must  be  mailed  at  least  eight  days  before  the 
primary  election.  The  amount  of  money  paid  for  space  in  the 
public  pamphlet  of  information  is  not  considered  in  determining 
the  amount  each  candidate  has  expended  in  his  campaign ;  that 
is,  he  is  entitled  to  expend  in  his  primary  campaign  15  per  cent 
of  one  year's  compensation  in  addition  to  what  he  pays  for  space 
in  the  public  pamphlet. 

Prior  to  the  general  election  the  executive  committee  or  man- 
aging officers  of  any  political  party  or  organization  may  file 
with  the  secretary  of  state  portrait  cuts  of  its  candidates  and 
typewritten  statements  and  arguments  for  the  success  of  its 
principles  and  the  election  of  its  candidates  and  opposing  or 
attacking  the  principles  and  candidates  of  all  other  parties. 
This  same  privilege  applies  to  independent  candidates.  These 
statements  and  arguments  are  printed  in  a  pamphlet  and  mailed 
to  the  registered  voters  of  the  State  not  later  than  the  tenth  day 
before  the  general  election. 

Each  party  is  limited  to  24  pages,  and  each  independent  can- 
didate to  2  pages,  each  page  in  this  pamphlet  being  charged  for 
at  the  rate  of  $50  per  page.  In  the  campaign  preceding  the  gen- 
eral election  each  candidate  is  limited  in  campaign  expenditures 
to  10  per  cent  of  one  year's  compensation. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  act  the  contribution,  expenditure, 
or  liability  of  a  descendant,  ascendant,  brother,  sister,  uncle, 
aunt,  nephew,  niece,  wife,  partner,  employer,  employee,  or  fel- 
low-official or  fellow-employee  of  a  corporation  is  deemed  to  be 
that  of  the  candidate  himself.  Any  person  not  a  candidate 
spending  more  than  $50  in  a  campaign  must  file  an  itemized  ac- 
count of  his  expenditures  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state  or 
the  county  clerk  and  give  a  copy  of  the  account  to  the  candidate 
for  whom  or  against  whom  the  money  was  spent. 

Legitimate  Use  of  Money  within  Limit 

While  the  corrupt  practices  act  limits  the  candidate  to  the 
expenditure  of  15  per  cent  of  one  year's  salary  in  his  primary 


316  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

campaign  and  10  per  cent  of  a  year's  salary  in  the  general  cam- 
paign, in  addition  to  what  he  pays  for  space  in  the  publicity 
pamphlet,  yet  the  law  does  not  prohibit  any  legitimate  use  of 
money  within  this  limitation.  The  act  makes  it  possible  for  a 
man  of  moderate  means  to  be  a  candidate  upon  an  equality  with 
a  man  of  wealth. 

Let  us  take  a  concrete  example,  as  a  means  of  illustrating  the 
operation  of  Oregon's  corrupt  practices  act.  The  salary  of  the 
governor  is  $5,000  a  year.  A  candidate  for  the  nomination  for 
governor  may  take  a  maximum  of  4  pages  in  the  publicity  pam- 
phlet, and  thus,  at  a  cost  of  $400,  be  able  to  reach  every  registered 
voter  of  his  party  in  the  entire  State.  In  addition  to  that  $400 
he  may  spend  $750,  or  15  per  cent  of  one  year's  salary,  in  any 
other  manner  he  may  choose,  not  in  violation  of  the  corrupt 
practices  act.  A  candidate  may  purchase  space  in  the  advertis- 
ing columns  of  a  newspaper,  but  in  order  that  this  paid  adver- 
tising shall  not  be  mistaken  for  news  the  law  requires  that  all 
paid  articles  be  marked  as  such. 

The  law  expressly  provides  that  none  of  its  provisions  shall 
be  construed  as  relating  to  the  rendering  of  services  by  speakers, 
writers,  publishers,  or  others  for  which  no  compensation  is  asked 
or  given,  nor  to  prohibit  expenditure  by  committees  of  political 
parties  or  organizations  for  public  speakers,  music,  halls,  lights, 
literature,  advertising,  office  rent,  printing,  postage,  clerk  hire, 
challengers  or  watchers  at  the  polls,  traveling  expenses,  tele- 
graphing or  telephoning,  or  the  making  of  poll  lists. 

The  successful  nominee  in  the  primary  may  spend  in  his  gen- 
eral campaign  10  per  cent  of  one  year's  salary,  this  expenditure,  in 
the  case  of  a  candidate  for  governor,  being  $500.  In  addition  to 
this  10  per  cent  of  a  year's  salary  he  may  contribute  toward  the 
payment  for  his  party's  statement  in  the  publicity  pamphlet  to 
be  mailed  by  the  secretary  of  state  to  every  registered  voter.  In 
the  publicity  pamphlet  for  the  general  campaign  each  party  may 
use  not  to  exceed  24  pages,  at  $50  per  page,  making  the  total  cost 
to  the  party  committee  $1,200,  or  about  $100  for  each  candidate. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  317 

The  candidate  is  therefore  limited  to  an  expenditure  of  $600 
in  his  general  campaign,  only  $100  of  which  is  necessary  in  order 
to  enable  him  to  reach  every  registered  voter.  He  could  reach 
every  registered  voter  in  his  party  in  the  primary  campaign  for 
$400.  Under  no  other  system  could  a  candidate  reach  all  the 
voters  in  two  campaigns  at  a  total  cost  of  $500. 

Improper  Acts  Prohibited 

The  Oregon  corrupt  practices  act  encourages  and  aids  pub- 
licity, but  prohibits  the  excessive  or  improper  use  of  money  or 
other  agencies  for  the  subversion  of  clean  elections.  Among 
the  acts  which  are  prohibited  I  may  mention  these : 

Promises  of  appointments  in  return  for  political  support. 

Solicitation  or  acceptance  of  campaign  contributions  from  or 
payment  of  contributions  by  persons  holding  appointive  positions. 

Publication  or  distribution  of  anonymous  letters  or  circulars 
regarding  candidates  or  measures  before  the  people. 

Sale  of  editorial  support  or  the  publication  of  paid  political 
advertising  without  marking  it  "Paid  advertising." 

Use  of  carriages  in  conveying  voters  to  the  polls. 

Active  electioneering  or  soliciting  votes  on  election  day. 

Campaign  contributions  by  quasi  public  or  certain  other  im- 
portant classes  of  corporations  generally  affected  by  legislation. 

Intimidation  or  coercion  of  voters  in  any  manner. 

Soliciting  candidates  to  subscribe  to  religious,  charitable, 
public,  and  semi-public  enterprises;  but  this  does  not  prohibit 
regular  payments  to  any  organization  of  which  the  candidate 
has  been  a  member,  or  to  which  he  has  been  a  contributor  for 
more  than  six  months  before  his  candidacy. 

Contribution  of  funds  in  the  name  of  any  other  than  the  per- 
son furnishing  the  money. 

Treating  by  candidates  as  a  means  of  winning  favor. 

Payment  or  promise  to  reward  another  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
ducing him  to  become  or  refrain  from  becoming  or  cease  being 
a  candidate,  or  solicitation  of  such  consideration. 


318  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Betting  on  an  election  by  a  candidate,  or  betting  on  an  elec- 
tion by  any  other  person  with  intent  to  influence  the  result. 

Attempting  to  vote  in  the  name  of  another  person,  living, 
dead,  or  fictitious. 

Publicity  of  Campaign  Expenditures 

There  is  no  interference  with  such  legitimate  acts  as  tend  to 
secure  full  publicity  and  free  expression  of  opinion.  Personal 
and  political  liberty  is  in  no  way  infringed  upon,  the  only  pur- 
pose being  to  prohibit  the  excessive  use  of  money,  promises  of 
appointment,  or  deception  and  fraud. 

The  corrupt  practices  act  requires  that  every  candidate  shall 
file  an  itemized  statement  of  his  campaign  expenditures  within 
fifteen  days  after  the  primary  election,  including  in  such  state- 
ment not  only  all  amounts  expended,  but  all  debts  incurred  or 
unfulfilled  promises  made. 

Every  political  committee  must  have  a  treasurer,  and  cause 
him  to  keep  a  detailed  account  of  its  receipts,  payments,  and 
liabilities.  Any  committee  or  agent  or  representative  of  a  candi- 
date must  file  an  itemized  statement  of  receipts  and  expendi- 
tures within  ten  days  after  the  election.  The  books  of  account 
of  any  treasurer  of  any  political  party,  committee,  or  organiza- 
tion during  an  election  campaign  shall  be  open  at  all  reasonable 
office  hours  to  the  inspection  of  the  treasurer  and  chairman  of 
any  opposing  political  party  or  organization  for  the  same  elec- 
toral district.  Failure  to  file  statements  as  required  by  law  is 
punishable  by  fine. 

The  candidate  violating  any  section  of  the  corrupt  practices 
act  forfeits  his  right  to  the  office.  Any  other  person  violating 
any  section  of  this  act  is  punished  by  imprisonment  of  not  more 
than  one  year  in  the  county  jail  or  a  fine  of  not  more  than  $5,000 
or  both.  The  candidate  is  also  subject  to  the  same  penalties. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  319 

14.     THE   CORRUPT  PRACTICE   LAWS   OF   MARYLAND1 

Though  state  legislation  on  corrupt  practices  leaves  much 
to  be  desired,  several  states  have  fairly  complete  laws  denning  acts 
which  must  not  be  committed  in  connection  with  elections. 
Typical  of  the  better  class  of  these  statutes  are  those  passed 
by  Maryland. 

Maryland.  Cd.  '04,  Art.  XXVII,  sec.  29.  Giving  or  promis- 
ing any  reward  to  influence  voters,  or  keeping  open  any  place 
where  intoxicating  liquors  or  victuals  are  gratuitously  dispensed 
upon  an  election  day  is  punished  by  imprisonment  and  fine. 

Art.  XXXIII,  sees.  87-102.  Registering  in  the  name  of  an- 
other or  where  one  is  not  a  qualified  elector  or  aiding  another 
to  so  illegally  register,  or,  preventing  by  force,  intimidation  or 
bribery  the  registering  or  voting  of  one  who  has  a  legal  right  to 
register  or  vote  is  punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail 
or  the  penitentiary  for  from  six  months  to  five  years.  One  con- 
victed of  bribery  or  attempting  to  vote  when  disfranchised  is 
punished  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  from  one  to 
five  years.  False  declarations  of  one's  ability  to  mark  one's 
ballot  or  marking  one's  ballot  so  that  it  may  be  discovered  how 
he  has  voted,  is  penalized.  Every  employe  who  is  qualified  to 
vote  is  entitled  to  absent  himself  from  his  employment  not  longer 
than  four  hours  to  vote  and  is  liable  to  no  penalty  therefor. 
Disposing  of  liquors  on  election  day  or  making  any  bet  upon 
the  elections  is  punished  by  a  fine. 

Laws  '08,  p.  125,  sees.  163-172.  Every  political  committee 
must  operate  through  a  political  treasurer  who  must  submit  a 
sworn  itemized  statement  of  all  money  passing  through  his  hands 
and  state  to  whom  it  was  paid  and  for  what  purpose.  Failure 
to  do  so  subjects  him  to  a  fine  of  from  $300  to  $1,000  or  to  a  two 
years  imprisonment  or  both.  None  but  a  candidate  may  within 
six  months  of  an  election  contribute  money  or  property  to 

1Lowrie,  S.  G.,  Corrupt  Practices  at  Elections.  Madison,  Wis.,  Feb.  1911, 
pp.  38-40.  (Summary.) 


320  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  success  or  defeat  of  a  candidate,  party  or  proposition  except 
through  a  political  committee.  No  candidate  may  within  six 
months  of  a  campaign  make  any  such  payments  except  an 
amount  determined  by  the  number  of  voters  voting  at  the 
last  election  for  the  office  he  seeks  and  for  such  personal  ex- 
penses as  postage,  printing,  telegraphing,  travel,  etc.  The 
political  treasurer  may  expend  money  only  for  certain  desig- 
nated purposes  such  as  conducting  public  meetings,  printing  and 
circulating  campaign  literature,  expenses  of  committee  head- 
quarters, traveling  expenses,  carriages  for  voters  on  election  day, 
etc.  Payments  must  be  reasonable  for  the  services  performed 
and  be  authorized  by  the  political  secretary  or  chairman.  All 
campaign  material  issued  in  periodicals  shall  be  designated  "ad- 
vertising." Within  twenty  days  after  an  election  or  primary, 
detailed,  sworn  statements  must  be  filed,  stating  what  the  as- 
sets and  liabilities  of  the  political  committee  have  been  during 
the  campaign.  Failure  to  record  such  a  statement  is  punish- 
able by  a  fine  of  from  $300  to  $1,000.  Such  statements  are  to 
be  on  file  and  open  to  public  inspection  for  three  years.  It  is  a 
corrupt  practice  to  give,  offer,  or  receive  money  or  other  induce- 
ments to  influence  voters;  to  make  campaign  contributions, 
except  to  a  political  agent  or  treasurer,  or  to  make  any  payments 
in  a  name  other  than  one's  own ;  for  employers  to  attempt  to  in- 
fluence the  political  actions  of  their  employes  by  notices  posted 
in  the  establishment  or  printed  on  pay  envelopes  threatening  a 
lessening  of  wages  or  work  in  the  event  of  any  election  contin- 
gency; or  to  give  entertainment  to  a  voter  to  influence  him. 
Violation  of  these  provisions  is  penalized  by  a  fine  of  from  $300 
to  $1,000,  imprisonment  and  ineligibility  for  public  office  for 
four  years.  The  officers  or  agents  of  a  corporation  who  make 
corporation  contributions  to  any  political  campaign  fund  are 
personally  liable  to  a  fine  not  to  exceed  $5,000  and  imprisonment 
not  exceeding  three  years. 

Laws  '10,  p.  126.    What  are  offenses  against  the  general  elec- 
tion laws  are  also  offenses  if  committed  in  the  primary  and  are 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  321 

punishable  in  the  same  way.    Penalties  are  specified  for  the  sale 
of  liquors  and  for  betting  on  the  primary. 

Candidates  for  the  U.  S.  Senate  must  file  within  thirty  days 
of  the  primary,  sworn,  itemized  statements  of  their  expenses. 
No  certificates  of  election  are  to  be  issued  until  campaign  ex- 
pense accounts  have  been  filed  and  verified.  Failure  to  file 
statements  is  punished  by  a  fine  of  from  $300  to  $2,000  and  im- 
prisonment not  longer  than  two  years  or  both. 


The  large  number  of  names  on  our  ballots  and  the  fact 
that  in  our  cities  the  average  man  does  not  know  the  candidates, 
has  made  it  necessary,  if  the  voter  is  to  vote  intelligently,  to 
have  some  extralegal  organizations  which  will  place  before  the 
voter  the  facts  upon  which  a  judgment  as  between  various  candi- 
dates can  be  made.  The  Chicago  Municipal  Voters'  League 
has  been  unusually  successful  in  this  work. 

(a)  Its  Organization 

The  Municipal  Voters'  League  —  What  it  Really  is. 

The  Municipal  Voters'  League  is  an  independent  political 
organization  the  sole  purpose  of  which  is  the  election  of  honest 
and  competent  municipal  officials  in  Chicago.  It  has  confined 
its  attention  to  members  of  the  -  City  Council.  It  is  absolutely 
non-partisan  and  intensely  practical.  It  was  organized  in  1896 
by  a  Committee  of  One  Hundred,  composed  of  a  Republican 
and  a  Democrat  from  each  of  the  thirty-four  wards  then  in  the 
city,  and  thirty-two  members  chosen  from  the  city  at  large  with- 
out regard  to  residence  or  political  affiliations.  This  Committee 
of  One  Hundred  was  the  result  of  a  meeting  of  about  two  hundred 
and  fifty  representatives  of  various  clubs  and  organizations  called 
together  to  devise  some  means  of  improving  conditions  in  the 
City  Council,  which  had  reached  the  final  stage  of  open  and 
shameless  corruption  and  had  become  a  most  dangerous  menace 

1  Pamphlet  published  by  the  Chicago  Municipal  Voters'  League,  1910. 
Y       -...•-• 


322  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

to  the  city.  The  Municipal  Voters'  League  thus  formed  con- 
sists of  an  Executive  Committee  of  nine  men,  supported  by  a 
large  general  membership  of  many  thousands  of  voters  in  all 
parts  of  the  city,  who  signed  cards  in  1896,  expressing  approval 
of  its  purposes  and  methods,  or  who  have  since  identified  them- 
selves with  its  work,  or  supported  its  recommendations  at  the 
polls. 

The  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  serve  for  three 
years,  the  term  of  one-third  of  the  committee  expiring  each  year. 
Vacancies  are  filled  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  those  holding  over. 
No  meetings  of  the  general  membership  are  held ;  but  the  Exec- 
utive Committee  appoints  a  Finance  Committee  and  an  Advisory 
Committee  outside  of  its  own  membership.  The  Executive 
Committee  alone  has  the  authority  to  use  the  name  of  the 
League,  or  to  commit  it  for  or  against  any  candidate  or  measure. 
No  candidate  for  office  can  become  or  remain  a  member  of  the 
Executive  Committee. 

There  has  never  been  a  division  on  political  lines.  Indeed, 
in  the  entire  history  of  the  League  there  has  been  but  one  im- 
portant action  taken  that  was  not  directed  by  the  unanimous 
vote  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

By  thoroughly  investigating  the  qualifications  and  character 
of  aldermanic  candidates  and  fearlessly  publishing  the  results  of 
such  investigations,  the  Municipal  Voters'  League  has  deservedly 
won  the  confidence  and  support  of  the  honest  and  intelligent 
voters  of  Chicago.  It  assumes  that  character  and  capacity  are 
the  fundamental  qualifications  for  useful  public  service;  that 
men  having  these  qualities  will  faithfully  represent  the  people, 
treat  justly  all  private  interests  and  dispose  of  every  public 
question  on  its  merits.  It  represents,  and  it  claims  to  represent, 
only  those  who  approve  of  its  purposes  and  its  methods.  It 
makes  no  pretenses  of  infallibility,  and  guarantees  the  future 
conduct  of  none  of  the  candidates  whose  election  it  may  advise. 
It  simply  recommends  to  the  voters  of  Chicago  that  course 
which  its  investigations  lead  it  to  believe  will  be  for  their  best 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  323 

interests;  and  it  states  concisely,  but  clearly,  the  facts  upon 
which  its  conclusions  rest.  It  has  no  political  or  personal  in- 
terest to  serve ;  no  scheme  to  which  it  is  committed.  It  knows 
neither  creed,  nor  class,  nor  party.  It  has  but  one  aim  —  the 
election  of  honest  and  capable  officials,  to  whom  the  interests  of 
the  entire  city  are  of  paramount  importance.  It  does  not  seek 
to  foist  on  any  ward  a  candidate  of  its  selection.  It  does  seek 
to  co-operate  in  every  ward  with  good  citizens  of  every  party 
in  the  formation  and  execution  of  plans  for  securing  the  nomina- 
tion of  men  for  whose  election  it  can  actively  exert  its  efforts  and 
its  influence. 

It  is  the  policy  of  the  League  not  to  suggest  candidates  in 
the  first  instance,  but  to  investigate  and  report  on  those  named 
by  others.  When  necessary  to  secure  at  least  one  fit  candidate  in 
a  given  ward,  it  actively  co-operates  with  the  public-spirited  cit- 
izens of  that  ward  in  securing  the  nomination  of  such  a  candidate 
at  the  party  primaries,  or  by  petition.  When  the  nominations 
have  all  been  made,  the  League  takes  an  active  part  in  the  wards 
where  there  is  danger  of  the  election  of  unfit  men.  In  such  cases 
it  not  only  takes  efficient  measures  to  inform  and  arouse  the 
voters  but  it  participates  as  an  active  political  factor  in  the  al- 
dermanic  campaign,  using  every  legitimate  means  to  carry  the 
election.  It  has  no  use  for  impractical  idealism,  and  it  chases 
no  rainbows.  It  believes  in  seizing  and  using  whatever  proper 
means  may  be  at  hand  to  reach  the  best  practically  attainable 
results. 

Each  year  the  League  adopts  a  little  platform  which  is  con- 
fined to  a  declaration  of  those  general  and  fundamental  principles 
which  seem  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple and  the  proper  administration  of  our  municipal  affairs. 
Sometimes  there  is  a  special  issue  which  may  afford  a  test  of  the 
sincerity  and  intelligence  of  those  general  pledges  of  honesty  and 
fidelity  so  readily  given  and  so  easily  evaded.  The  League  does 
not  neglect  such  opportunities.  Its  platform  is  tendered  to  each 
candidate  for  his  approval,  disapproval,  or  modification.  If  it 


324  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

does  not  accurately  express  the  views  of  any  candidate  he  is  not 
only  at  liberty,  but  the  League  desires  him  to  make  such  modifi- 
cations for  himself  as  will  render  the  platform  to  which  he  does 
subscribe  the  accurate  expression  of  his  own  opinions.  The 
League  desires  no  man  to  sign  its  platform  because  it  is  its  plat- 
form. It  does  insist,  however,  that  every  aldermanic  candidate 
shall  in  some  way  state  fully,  definitely,  and  publicly  his  own 
views  upon  the  important  issues  and  principles  involved.  .  . 

(b)  Its  Platform  1 

1.  The  aldermanic  office  involves  service  for  the  whole  people. 
An  alderman  should  discharge  his  duties  with  an  eye  not  solely  to 
the  local  interests  of  his  ward,  but  to  the  city's  interests  at  large. 

2.  The  office  of  alderman  is  non-partisan  in  its  nature,  and 
should  be  discharged  without  reference  to  party  affiliations. 

3.  All  council  committees  should  be  organized  strictly  on  the 
basis  of  integrity  and  fitness  and  without  regard  to  party. 

4.  No  alderman  should  accept  or  hold  any  duty  or  employ- 
ment, or  be,  directly  or  indirectly,  connected  with,  or  engaged 
in,  any  business  or  enterprise  in  conflict  with  the  city's  interest, 
or  tending  to  interfere  with  the  disinterested  discharge  of  his 
duties,  or  to  prevent  his  unrestricted  activity  for  the  public  good. 

5.  No  alderman  should  seek    or   demand  a  permit,  special 
privilege  or  immunity  for  any  individual  or  corporation  in  con- 
flict with  the  public  interest,  or  denied  to  the  citizens  generally. 

6.  The  health  and  welfare  of  the  people  depend  in  large 
measure  on  hygienic  and  sanitary  conditions,  and  every  alder- 
man should  strive  to  have  these  constantly  improved  and  main- 
tained in  the  best  possible  state.     The  public  health  should  in 
no  instance  be  sacrificed  to  special  interests. 

7.  The  city  in  all  its  departments  should  have  a  thorough 
and  businesslike  system  of  accounting  and  auditing.     Through 
periodic  examinations,  the  employment  of  experts  and  the  tech- 

1  Platform   of    the   Chicago   Municipal  Voters'   League,   1911,  Chicago 
Record-Herald,  Mar.  29,  1911  (excerpt). 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  325 

nical  study  of  the  functions,  administration  and  requirements  of 
the  various  branches  of  municipal  government,  improved  busi- 
ness methods  should  be  introduced  into  all  of  them,  so  that  not 
only  may  economies  be  effected,  but  the  most  approved  and 
skilled  service  rendered  to  the  people. 

8.  An  alderman  should  uphold  the  strict  enforcement  of  the 
civil  service  law  and  the  application  of  the  merit  system  to 
municipal  employment. 

9.  Grants  for  street  railways,    subways,  tunnels,  wharves, 
docks  and  other  public  utilities,  including  telephone,  telegraph, 
gas  and  electric  lighting,  heating,  refrigerating,  power  and  other 
like  services,  should  be  for  as  short  a  term  as  is  consistent  with 
the  best  service  to  the  public;   provided,  no  grant  for  a  term 
exceeding  twenty  years  should  become  effective  unless  and  until 
approved  on  a  referendum.     All  grants  to  a  given  corporation  or 
individual  should  expire  at  the  same  time,  and  no  supplemental 
or  collateral  grant  should  run  beyond  the  time  when  the  main 
grant  expires. 

10.  No  grant  should  be  made  for  any  public  utility  without 
expressly  reserving  to  the  city  the  opportunity  for  municipal 
purchase,  at  or  before  the  expiration  of  such  grant,  upon  fair 
terms  and  reasonable  notice.   .   . 

I,  the  undersigned,  a  candidate  for  alderman  from  the 

ward,  freely  place  the  foregoing  platform  before  my  constitu- 
ents and  the  whole  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago  and  pledge  my- 
self to  adhere  to  these  principles  and  to  work  and  to  vote  in  com- 
mittee and  on  the  floor  of  the  council  to  carry  out  the  same. 

(c)  Its  Estimate  of  Candidates  l 

To  THE  VOTERS  OF  CHICAGO:  For  the  sixteenth  year 
the  Municipal  Voters'  League  submits  to  the  people  of 
Chicago  its  official  report  and  recommendations  for  the  alder- 
manic  elections. 

1  Extract  from  report  in  Chicago  Record-Herald,  Mar.  24,  1911. 


326  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

Not  the  mayor,  but  the  aldermen  will  settle  the  price  of  gas 
and  of  telephones  and  such  big  questions  as  the  subway  and  the 
harbor.  No  matter  who  is  elected  mayor  it  is  of  vital  impor- 
tance to  have  an  able  and  honest  council.  Do  not  neglect  the 
aldermanic  contest  in  your  ward.  Vote  for  the  best  man  re- 
gardless of  his  party  or  mayoralty  affiliations.  .  . 

Seventeenth  Ward  (Short  Term)  —  Vote  for  Walkowiak 

Stanley  S.  Walkowiak  —  Democrat;  lives  1310  Cornel  street; 
lawyer,  132  South  Clark  street;  born  in  the  ward  1877;  gradu- 
ate St.  Stanislaus  parochial  school ;  two  years  Notre  Dame  Uni- 
versity, and  graduate  St.  Ignatius  College  1900,  and  of  Chicago 
College  of  Law  1903  ;  ran  for  alderman  last  year,  at  which  time 
league  criticised  his  political  affiliations ;  man  of  ability,  energy 
and  ambition  ;  well  spoken  of  by  men  competent  to  judge,  who 
consider  that  he  may  develop  independence  and  exhibit  ability 
which  would  be  a  credit  to  the  ward;  signed  league  platform. 

Stephen  P.  Revere  —  Republican  ;  lives  1057  Grand  avenue ; 
until  recently  superintendent  Illinois  Free  Employment  office; 
born  San  Andreas,  Cal.,  1856;  common  school  education;  in 
ward  forty-five  years;  former  contractor;  in  council  1885-7  and 
again  in  1895-7  where  he  made  record  as  constant  supporter  of 
franchise  grabs ;  in  1897  when  Revere  was  a  candidate  against 
James  Walsh  gross  election  frauds  were  committed  in  Revere's 
interest.  Walsh  contested  the  election,  carried  his  case  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  won  against  the  active  fight  made  by  Revere 
and  the  gang  members  in  the  council.  Revere  was  unseated  and 
the  judges  of  election  who  committed  the  fraud  sent  to  the  peni- 
tentiary. This  former  gangster  should  be  kept  out  of  the  council, 
which  he  disgraced  so  far  as  was  in  his  power  while  he  was  an 
alderman.  .  . 

Nineteenth  Ward  —  Vote  for  Cimbalo 

Michele  Cimbalo  —  Socialist ;  lives  920  South  Morgan  street ; 
inspector  for  Immigrants'  Protective  League,  157  Plymouth 
court;  born  Italy  1884;  in  Chicago  and  ward  fourteen  years; 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  327 

general  course  University  of  Illinois  eighteen  months ;  shepherd 
in  Italy,  newsboy,  water  boy  for  railroad  gangs,  later  book- 
binder by  trade,  then  stationary  fireman ;  intelligent  and  ener- 
getic. 

Onofrio  Pacelli  —  Republican;  lives  518  Ewing  street;  fore- 
man on  street  car  work ;  nine  years  in  bailiff's  office ;  not  well 
qualified. 

John  Powers  —  Democrat;  lives  1284  Macalister  place; 
president  Pullman  Chemical  Company,  1701  North  Ashland 
avenue ;  finishing  eleventh  term ;  successor  of  Cullerton  as  gang 
leader  for  corporate  influences ;  has  systematically  betrayed  the 
people  of  the  ward  and  injured  the  people  of  the  city ;  telephone 
"jammer";  the  man  in  charge  of  the  passage  of  the  notorious 
Ogden  gas  ordinance.  .  . 

1 6.     NATIONAL  PARTIES  IN  LOCAL  ELECTIONS  1 

The  peculiar  national  character  of  our  party  organization 
has  made  all  elections  except  that  of  the  president  subservient 
to  the  national  party  interests.  Local  issues  as  a  rule  do  not 
dominate  local  elections  even  when  held  at  times  when  no 
national  officers  are  to  be  elected.) 

How  shall  the  political  machinists  conduct  themselves  and 
their  machinery  in  a  state  election  where  national  political  issues 
are  not  directly  involved  ?  Theoretically,  they  may  refrain  from 
taking  any  part  in  the  state  election  supposed,  but  practically 
there  are  great  obstacles  in  the  way  of  this  quiescence.  In  the 
first  place,  the  election  may  be,  and  very  commonly  is,  both  na- 
tional and  local.  President,  congressman,  governor,  legislature, 
mayor,  and  city  council  are  often  voted  for  on  the  same  ballot. 
Let  us  suppose  that  A  and  B  prefer  X  for  president,  and  that  C 
and  D  prefer  Y.  A  and  D  prefer  U  for  governor,  B  and  C  prefer 
Z.  It  is  difficult,  at  the  least,  for  A,  after  spending  his  morning 
with  B  in  planning  how  to  defeat  Y,  D's  candidate  for  the  presi- 

1  Lowell,  F.  C.,  "The  American  Boss,"  Atlantic,  1900;  pp.  292-293. 


328  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

dency,  to  spend  the  afternoon  with  D  in  planning  the  defeat  of 
Z,  B's  candidate  for  governor.  The  difficulty  is  greatly  in- 
creased, indeed  it  becomes  insuperable,  if  A  and  D  agree  in  con- 
sidering the  presidential  election  so  much  more  important  than 
the  gubernatorial  that  each  of  them  would,  in  case  of  necessity, 
sacrifice  his  gubernatorial  to  realize  his  presidential  preferences. 
Even  if  the  national,  state,  and  municipal  elections  occur  at 
different  times,  the  trouble  just  suggested  exists,  though  in  a 
less  degree.  Political  machinery  is  not  created  at  a  week's  no- 
tice, or  in  a  month's.  In  truth,  the  difficulty  is  fundamental  in 
human  nature.  Men  do  not  vote  for  Republican  candidates 
altogether  because  of  a  reasoned  preference  for  these  candidates 
as  individuals,  or  for  the  principles  which  Republican  candidates 
are  supposed  to  represent.  Most  voters  are  largely  influenced 
by  habit,  tradition,  and  sentiment.  That  a  man  is  a  consistent 
Democrat  often  means  little  more  than  that  he  is  attached  to 
the  Democratic  name,  and  always  votes  for  Democratic  candi- 
dates because  they  are  labeled  with  it.  Such  a  Democrat 
naturally  prefers  a  Democratic  governor  to  a  Republican  gover- 
nor, a  Democratic  alderman  to  a  Republican  alderman,  although 
the  principles  of  the  Democratic  national  party  have  little  or 
nothing  to  do  with  the  action  of  governors  and  aldermen.  This 
disposition  of  the  voters  makes  it  almost  impossible  to  separate 
local  from  state  politics,  or  to  keep  the  machinery  primarily  de- 
vised for  national  purposes  from  use  in  local  elections.  Munici- 
pal elections  outside  the  large  cities,  indeed,  when  they  occur 
apart  from  state  and  national  elections,  are  not  infrequently  con- 
ducted with  little  regard  for  national  politics ;  so  sometimes  is 
the  election  in  a  single  legislative  district.  But  these  important 
and  interesting  exceptions  cannot  hide  the  rule  or  the  conditions 
of  human  nature  upon  which  the  rule  is  based.  To  expect  those 
who  manage  the  local  machinery  of  a  national  party  to  keep 
that  machinery  idle  in  a  state  election,  or  in  the  municipal  elec- 
tion of  a  large  city,  is  to  expect  the  impossible  under  existing 
conditions.  The  introduction  of  national  politics  into  local 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  329 

elections  is  caused  not  so  much  by  the  intrigues  of  political 
machinists  as  by  the  workings  of  ordinary  human  nature. 

If,  then,  the  parties  and  their  machinery  are  to  be  the  same 
in  national  and  state  elections,  and  commonly  the  same  in  na- 
tional and  municipal  elections,  how  will  the  operative  machinist, 
who  is  thoroughly  and  unselfishly  devoted  to  the  national 
triumph  of  his  party's  principles  and  candidates,  regard  the  local 
election  in  which  he  and  his  machine  are  to  take  part  ?  After 
examining  the  standpoint  of  an  ideal  machinist,  we  can  lower 
our  view  to  that  of  the  machinist  of  less  exalted  character. 
Plainly,  a  state  or  municipal  election  is  not  unlikely  to  disturb 
the  working  of  political  machinery  which  has  been  created  to 
affect  national  elections.  If  there  is  a  real  issue  in  local  politics, 
even  if  the  personality  of  a  candidate  for  local  office  is  marked, 
some  voters  who  are  Republicans  on  national  issues  will  vote  the 
Democratic  local  ticket.  Though  this  loss  will  be  made  good 
more  or  less  by  the  votes  of  some  who  are  Democrats  on  national 
issues,  yet  the  change  will  disarrange  the  Republican  machine 
and  may  endanger  the  success  of  its  party's  national  principles. 
A  machinist  seeks  to  bring  out  the  full  Republican  or  Democratic 
vote,  and  to  increase  that  vote  within  certain  limits,  by  improved 
machinery.  He  dreads  great  changes,  even  though  they  are 
in  his  own  favor,  for  he  knows  that  they  bring  their  reaction. 
If  the  state  branch  of  the  national  party  adopts  an  important 
state  issue,  he  knows  that  some  of  his  men  will  stray,  and,  worse 
than  all,  that  carefully  formed  habits  of  partisan  discipline  will 
be  weakened;  hence,  so  far  as  state  politics  are  concerned,  he 
tends  to  caution.  The  voters  of  his  party  may  believe  in  pro- 
hibition, high  license,  low  license,  or  unrestricted  sale  of  liquor, 
so  long  as  the  working  of  his  machinery  is  not  disturbed.  The 
Republican  machine  in  Massachusetts,  for  instance,  once  pro- 
cured the  submission  to  the  people  of  a  prohibitory  amendment 
to  the  state  constitution,  but  declined  to  take  sides  upon  the 
amendment's  adoption.  The  machine  wished  to  get  the  ques- 
tion out  of  its  way  without  losing  support  by  taking  sides.  The 


3JO  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

faithful  national  machinist  will  also  dread  the  disturbance  caused 
by  an  exciting  municipal  election,  and  here  the  man  whose  chief 
interest  is  in  state  politics  will  agree  with  him.  If  the  machinist 
is  honest  and  well-intentioned,  he  will  desire  honest  and  efficient 
administration  by  his  party  in  city  and  state,  as  well  as  in  the 
nation,  knowing  that  this  will  commend  his  machinery  and  the 
principles  it  exists  to  promote ;  but  he  will  hesitate  to  disarrange 
the  machinery  by  violent  interference  with  a  particular  piece  of 
maladministration,  especially  if  it  concerns  the  state  or  munici- 
pality rather  than  the  nation. 

17.     MUNICIPAL  POLITICS  AND  BOSSISM  J 

City  populations  furnish  the  greatest  opportunity  for  bad 
political  conditions  since  the  people  do  not  know  each  other 
and  because  they  are  within  easy  reach  of  those  who  wish  to 
manipulate  their  suffrages.  Some  of  the  ways  in  which  the 
"boss  "  succeeds  in  getting  a  firm  grip  upon  the  local  government 
are  indicated  here. 

The  political  forces  that  resist  every  advance  toward  the 
attainment  of  government  accountable  to  the  people  governed 
and  make  for  the  establishment  of  a  government  in  the  interest 
of  a  privileged  few  are  nowhere  so  active  or  so  powerful  as  in 
the  city.  The  city  itself  creates  the  economic  conditions  that 
give  these  forces  full  play.  The  urgent  needs  of  the  city's  com- 
munity-life for  water,  transportation,  light,  telephonic  communi- 
cation, and  similar  communal  services  can  only  be  met  through 
governmental  action.  The  men  engaged  in  supplying  these 
services  are  necessarily  in  the  most  intimate  and  constant  con- 
tact with  the  city  government,  while  the  business  interests  and 
occupations  of  the  vast  majority  of  men  bring  them  but  rarely  if 
at  all  into  conscious  relation  with  the  government  of  the  city  in 
which  they  live. 

1  Deming,  H.  E.,  Government  of  American  Cities.  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons, 
New  York,  1910;  pp.  192-197. 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  331 

On  the  one  hand,  the  satisfaction  of  urgent  community- 
needs  has  created  a  class  of  special  businesses  which  are  made 
profitable  by  influencing  governmental  action ;  on  the  other,  is 
the  great  mass  of  the  citizens  to  whom  any  special  effort  to  reach 
or  influence  a  city  official  involves  business  loss.  The  enjoyers 
of  special  privilege  have  been  constantly  watchful  of  the  conduct 
of  city  government  and  constantly  active  in  securing  the  elec- 
tion and  appointment  of  public  officials  favorable  to  their  busi- 
ness plans.  The  general  body  of  the  citizens,  secure  under 
the  constitution  in  their  personal  and  property  rights  and  ab- 
sorbed in  business  callings  and  occupations  that  neither  need 
special  assistance  nor  invite  any  interference  from  the  city  gov- 
ernment, have  paid,  at  most,  only  so  much  attention  to  it  as 
voting  for  their  regular  party  candidates  on  election  day  might 
require  and,  perhaps,  at  times  contributing  to  their  party's 
treasury. 

The  exploiters  of  the  need  for  transit,  light,  and  other  public 
services  have  found  in  each  city  a  natural  ally  in  every  man  who 
desired  some  selfish  personal  advantage  from  its  government. 
The  domination  of  the  state  legislature  over  municipal  affairs 
brings  to  the  state  capital  the  franchise  seekers  from  every  city, 
there  to  work  in  congenial  and  unwholesome  fellowship  with 
every  other  special  interest  in  quest  of  legislative  largess. 
Neither  is  the  hunter  of  governmental  bounty  unknown  to 
Washington.  His  insidious  influence  has  been  felt  in  every  de- 
partment of  our  government.  The  same  cause,  hunger  for  the 
enormously  valuable  special  privileges  at  the  disposal  of  govern- 
ment under  modern  economic  conditions,  has  been  active  in 
nation,  state,  and  city. 

The  privilege-seeker  has  pervaded  our  political  life.  For  his 
own  profit  he  has  wilfully  befouled  the  sources  of  political  power. 
Politics,  which  should  offer  a  career  inspiring  to  the  noblest 
thoughts  and  calling  for  the  most  patriotic  efforts  of  which  man  is 
capable,  he  has,  so  far  as  he  could,  transformed  into  a  series  of 
sordid  transactions  between  those  who  buy  and  those  who  sell 


332  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

governmental  action.  His  success  has  depended  upon  hiding 
the  methods  by  which  he  has  gained  his  ends.  AH  the  forms 
through  which  the  voters  are  accustomed  to  exercise  their  rights 
have  been  strictly  observed.  Untroubled  by  conscientious 
scruples,  consistently  non-partisan,  he  has  welcomed  the  sup- 
port of  every  party  and  been  prompt  to  reward  the  aid  of  any 
political  manager.  Step  by  step  he  gained  control  of  the  party 
machinery.  His  fellow  citizens  have  been  in  profound  ignorance 
that  he  named  all  the  candidates  among  whom  they  made  their 
futile  choice  on  election  day. 

For  a  long  time  our  real  government  had  not  been  the  one 
described  in  constitution  or  statute ;  our  electoral  methods  had 
long  ceased  to  furnish  a  genuine  opportunity  for  the  expression 
of  the  popular  will ;  the  actual  government  had  passed  into  the 
control  of  an  elaborate  feudal  system  with  its  lords  and  overlords, 
each  with  his  retinue  of  followers  and  dependents,  all  supported 
at  the  expense  of  the  public ;  yet  the  people  were  quite  unaware 
that  the  ancient  methods  upon  which  they  relied  in  order  to  have 
an  effective  participation  in  the  conduct  of  the  government  and 
to  secure  public  officials  responsible  to  them  and  actively  con- 
cerned to  protect  the  common  interest  and  promote  the  common 
good  were  rapidly  becoming  mere  shams. 

In  every  department  of  human  affairs  requiring  the  exhibition 
of  skill,  the  expert,  sooner  or  later,  inevitably  becomes  promi- 
nent. There  was  an  insistent  demand  for  the  expert  of  every 
grade  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  in  an  undertaking  involving 
so  much  knowledge  of  human  nature,  such  mastery  of  detail,  so 
much  persistence  of  effort,  and  such  adroitness  as  the  conduct  of 
government  by  purchase  under  the  guise  of  a  government  by 
the  people.  In  response  to  this  demand  came  the  "Boss,"  the 
expert  who  attended  to  the  infinite  details  and  complications  of 
party  management  and  organization  and  supplied  the  public 
officials  —  and  thereby  the  kind  of  government  —  the  privilege- 
seeker  desired. 

The  boss  was  a  distinct  advantage  to  the  class  that  throve 


Party  Problems  and  Remedies  333 

by  government  favors.  His  real  occupation  was  unknown  to 
the  people,  and  if  at  first  they  did  not  welcome  his  appearance 
they  thought  him  nevertheless  the  natural  and  perfectly  legiti- 
mate outcome  of  their  accustomed  political  methods,  a  leader 
whom  they  could  displace  when  he  lost  their  approval.  They 
did  not  realize  his  ominous  significance.  Gradually  it  began  to 
dawn  upon  them  that  they  could  neither  select  nor  elect  him ; 
that  he  was  not  a  person,  but  a  system.  The  individual  might 
disappear  or  be  displaced,  but  the  boss  always  remained.  Not 
until  his  sinister  figure  was  appearing  in  city  after  city  and  state 
after  state  and  even  in  the  United  States  senate,  not  until 
there  was  overwhelming  evidence  of  a  hierarchy  of  bosses, 
big  and  little,  did  there  begin  to  be  a  general  awakening  of 
the  people  to  the  existence  of  a  system  wholly  mercenary, 
reared  upon  the  greed  for  special  privilege  and  the  sale  of 
such  privilege  by  the  skilled  manipulations  of  the  political  party- 
organizations. 

The  issue  has  now  been  fairly  made  up  between  Special  Priv- 
ilege and  Democracy,  between  government  by  purchase  and 
government  by  the  people.  The  contest  will  be  a  long  one.  It 
has  already  taken  many  forms  and  will  assume  countless  more. 
Its  crucial  battles  will  be  in  the  city,  for  there  the  struggle  be- 
tween privilege  and  the  common  good  is  most  constant  and  most 
intense.  It  is  in  the  city  that  the  victory  of  the  one  side  or  the 
other  will  be  most  far  reaching  in  its  consequences,  for  nothing 
is  more  certain  than  that  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
inhabitants  of  the  United  States  will  be  city-dwellers.  This  is 
already  true  of  the  Eastern  states.  The  triumph  of  privilege  in 
the  city  will  mean,  therefore,  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  Ameri- 
can people  have  been  made  the  subjects  of  government  by  pur- 
chase. And  it  will  mean  much  more.  The  increasing  domina- 
tion in  state  after  state  of  the  city  "machines"  over  the  state 
organization  of  political  parties  foreshadows  the  outcome  in 
state  and  in  nation. 

If  the  fight  of  the  people  to  put  down  government  by  purchase 


334  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

masquerading  in  the  forms  of  democracy  can  be  won  in  the  city 
and  a  government  accountable  to  the  people  set  up  in  its  stead, 
democracy  will  triumph  in  state  and  nation.  If  the  people  lose 
their  fight  in  the  city,  they  will  lose  it  in  state  and  nation.  The 
city  is  the  battle-ground  of  democracy. 


X.  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  AND  THE  RECALL 

I.     THE  INITIATIVE  AND  REFERENDUM1 

Direct  legislation  has  received  its  widest  use  in  America  in 
Oregon.  The  provisions  of  the  state  constitution  quoted 
here  show  the  framework  adopted  there  for  this  new  method  of 
popular  control. 

SECTION  i.  The  legislative  authority  of  the  state  shall  be 
vested  in  a  legislative  assembly,  consisting  of  a  senate  and  house 
of  representatives,  but  the  people  reserve  to  themselves  power  to 
propose  laws  and  amendments  to  the  constitution  and  to  enact 
or  to  reject  the  same  at  the  polls,  independent  of  the  legislative 
assembly,  and  also  reserve  power  at  their  own  option  to  approve 
or  reject  at  the  polls  any  act  of  the  legislative  assembly.  The 
first  power  reserved  by  the  people  is  the  initiative,  and  not  more 
than  eight  per  cent,  of  the  legal  voters  shall  be  required  to  pro- 
pose any  measure  by  such  petition,  and  every  such  petition  shall 
include  the  full  test  of  the  measure  so  proposed.  Initiative  peti- 
tions shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  not  less  than  four 
months  before  the  election  at  which  they  are  to  be  voted  upon. 
The  second  power  is  the  referendum,  and  it  may  be  ordered 
(except  as  to  laws  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation  of 
the  public  peace,  health  or  safety),  either  by  the  petition  signed 
by  five  per  cent,  of  the  legal  voters,  or  by  the  legislative  assembly, 
as  other  bills  are  enacted.  Referendum  petitions  shall  be  filed 
with  the  secretary  of  state  not  more  than  ninety  days  after  the 
final  adjournment  of  the  session  of  the  legislative  assembly  which 
passed  the  bill  on  which  the  referendum  is  demanded.  The  veto 
power  of  the  governor  shall  not  extend  to  measures  referred  to 

1  Constitution  of  Oregon,  Articles  IV  and  XVII. 
335 


336  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

the  people.  All  elections  on  measures  referred  to  the  people 
shall  be  had  at  the  biennial  regular  general  election,  except  when 
the  legislative  assembly  shall  order  a  special  election.  Any 
measure  referred  to  the  people  shall  take  effect  and  become  the 
law  when  it  is  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon, 
and  not  otherwise.  The  style  of  all  bills  shall  be :  "Be  it  enacted 
by  the  people  of  the  State  of  Oregon."  This  section  shall 
not  be  construed  to  deprive  any  member  of  the  legislative  as- 
sembly of  the  right  to  introduce  any  measure.  The  whole  num- 
ber of  votes  cast  for  justice  of  the  supreme  court  at  the  regular 
election  last  preceding  the  filing  of  any  petition  for  the  initiative 
or  for  the  referendum  shall  be  the  basis  on  which  the  number  of 
legal  voters  necessary  to  sign  such  petition  shall  be  counted. 
Petitions  and  orders  for  the  initiative  and  referendum  shall  be 
filed  with  the  secretary  of  state,  and  in  submitting  the  same  to 
the  people  he,  and  all  other  officers,  shall  be  guided  by  the  general 
laws  and  the  act  submitting  this  amendment,  until  legislation 
shall  be  especially  provided  therefor. 

Sec.  10.  The  referendum  may  be  demanded  by  the  people 
against  one  or  more  items,  sections  or  parts  of  any  act  of  the  legis- 
lative assembly,  in  the  same  manner  in  which  such  power  may  be 
exercised  against  a  complete  act.  The  filing  of  a  referendum 
petition  against  one  or  more  items,  sections  or  parts  of  an  act 
shall  not  delay  the  remainder  of  that  act  from  becoming  opera- 
tive. The  initiative  and  referendum  powers  reserved  to  the 
people  by  this  constitution  are  hereby  further  reserved  to  all  lo- 
cal, special  and  municipal  legislation  of  every  character,  in  and 
for  their  respective  municipalities  and  districts.  The  manner 
of  exercising  said  powers  shall  be  prescribed  by  general  laws, 
except  that  cities  and  towns  may  provide  for  the  manner  of  exer- 
cising the  initiative  and  referendum  powers  as  to  their  municipal 
legislation.  Not  more  than  ten  per  cent,  of  the  legal  voters  may 
be  required  to  order  the  referendum  nor  more  than  fifteen  per 
cent,  to  propose  any  measure  by  the  initiative  in  any  city  or 
town.  . 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  337 

SECTION  I.  Any  amendment  or  amendments  to  this  con- 
stitution may  be  proposed  in  either  branch  of  the  legislative 
assembly,  and  if  the  same  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  all 
the  members  elected  to  each  of  the  two  houses,  such  proposed 
amendment  or  amendments  shall,  with  the  yeas  and  nays  there- 
on, be  entered  in  their  journals  and  referred  by  the  secretary  of 
state  to  the  people  for  their  approval  or  rejection,  at  the  next 
regular  general  election,  except  when  the  legislative  assembly 
shall  order  a  special  election  for  that  purpose.  If  a  majority  of 
the  electors  voting  on  any  such  amendment  shall  vote  in  favor 
thereof,  it  shall  thereby  become  a  part  of  this  constitution.  The 
votes  for  and  against  such  amendment  or  amendments,  severally, 
whether  proposed  by  the  legislative  assembly  or  by  initiative 
petition,  shall  be  canvassed  by  the  secretary  of  state  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  governor,  and  if  it  shall  appear  to  the  governor  that 
the  majority  of  the  votes  cast  at  said  election  on  said  amendment 
or  amendments,  severally,  are  cast  in  favor  thereof,  it  shall  be 
his  duty  forthwith  after  such  canvass,  by  his  proclamation,  to 
declare  the  said  amendment  or  amendments,  severally,  having 
received  said  majority  of  votes,  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  peo- 
ple of  Oregon  as  a  part  of  the  constitution  thereof,  and  the  same 
shall  be  in  effect  as  a  part  of  the  constitution  from  the  date  of 
such  proclamation.  When  two  or  more  amendments  shall  be 
submitted  in  the  manner  aforesaid  to  the  voters  of  this  state,  at 
the  same  election,  they  shall  be  so  submitted  that  each  amend- 
ment shall  be  voted  on  separately.  No  convention  shall  be 
called  to  amend  or  propose  amendments  to  this  constitution, 
or  to  propose  a  new  constitution,  unless  the  law  providing  for 
such  convention  shall  first  be  approved  by  the  people  on  a  refer- 
endum vote  at  a  regular  general  election.  This  article  shall  not 
be  construed  to  impair  the  right  of  the  people  to  amend  this  con- 
stitution by  vote  upon  an  initiative  petition  therefor. 


33  8  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

2.     THE  WEAKNESS  OF  DIRECT  LEGISLATION  l 

Direct  legislation,  it  is  feared  by  many,  is  bound  to  be  crude 
because  of  the  lack  of  opportunity  for  a  sifting  of  opinion  and  a 
recasting  of  the  form  the  law  is  to  take.  Doubts  are  raised  also 
as  to  whether  it  will  remove  the  apathy  of  "stay  at  home"  citi- 
zens. Instead  of  making  easier  the  work  of  the  already  heavily 
burdened  voter  it  increases  his  duties. 

In  order  that  the  referendum  may  operate  as  an  efficient  check 
upon  bad  laws  it  must  be  intelligently  directed.  Those  laws 
which  need  to  be  held  up  must  be  discovered  before  the  end  of 
the  ninety  days  within  which  it  is  usually  provided  that  the 
petition  must  be  filed,  and  the  requisite  petition  must  be  se- 
cured and  filed  within  this  period.  If  the  referendum  is  to  oper- 
ate effectively  in  this  regard,  there  must  be  a  careful  examination 
of  the  laws  by  persons  who  are  interested  in  legislative  matters 
and  who  are  willing  to  scrutinize  the  acts  of  the  legislature  and 
to  devote  themselves  to  the  task  of  securing  the  necessary  peti- 
tions. In  all  probability  only  a  portion  of  the  bad  laws  will  be 
discovered  to  be  bad  within  the  time  limit.  Unless  the  present 
means  for  the  publication  of  our  state  laws  are  greatly  improved, 
the  public  generally  will  be  ignorant  of  the  provisions  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  laws  for  a  considerable  period  after  their  passage. 
It  may  be  expected,  therefore,  that  only  those  laws  in  which 
there  is  a  very  general  interest,  or  which  so  affect  the  interests 
of  particular  individuals  that  they  will  make  it  their  business  to 
see  that  the  petition  is  secured,  will  be  subjected  to  the  popu- 
lar vote. 

One  very  real  danger  must  be  noted.  This  is  that  the  refer- 
endum may  be  used  not  only  against  laws  which  have  been  se- 
cured by  an  active  and  well-organized  minority,  and  which  sub- 
serve special  or  class  interests,  but  also  to  suspend,  until  the 
next  general  election,  laws  which  are  really  desired  by  the  people. 

1  Sanborn,  J.  B.,  "  Popular  Legislation  in  the  United  States."  Politi- 
cal Science  Quarterly,  Vol.  23,  p.  587  et  seq.,  Dec.,  1908. 


„ 

D( 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  339 


n  order  that  the  referendum  may  have  any  effectiveness  the 
percentage  of  voters  necessary  to  secure  the  popular  vote  cannot 
be  very  large.  It  must  be  a  number  which  can  be  secured  with- 
out any  real  difficulty  within  the  limited  time.  This  requirement 
makes  it  possible  for  special  interests  which  are  adversely  affected 
by  legislation  to  prevent  its  taking  effect  for  a  considerable 
period.  That  this  objection  is  not  fanciful  may  be  seen  in  the 
experience  of  South  Dakota  last  year.  In  that  state  petitions 
have  been  filed  for  popular  vote  upon  three  laws  passed  by  the 
legislature  of  1907.  These  laws  are:  An  act  extending  to  one 
year  the  period  of  residence  necessary  for  securing  a  divorce, 
an  act  prohibiting  the  shooting  of  quail  until  1912,  and  an  act 
prohibiting  theatrical  exhibitions,  circuses,  etc.,  upon  Sunday. 

After  the  referendum  petition  has  been  filed,  there  is  still  the 
question  of  the  efficiency  of  the  popular  vote.  If  the  bad  laws 
do  not,  on  the  whole,  slip  through  unobserved  and  unchecked 
by  petition,  and  if  the  plan  be  not  used  to  suspend  good  laws,  it 
is  still  necessary  that  it  shall  secure  an  expression  of  the  best 
public  sentiment. 

Such  data  as  we  have  show  that  the  referendum  vote  will  be 
comparatively  small.  The  ordinary  experience  with  these  popu- 
lar votes,  either  upon  laws  or  upon  constitutional  provisions,  in- 
dicates that  the  vote  cast  on  such  questions  is  usually  much 
smaller  than  that  cast  at  the  same  time  for  candidates  for  public 
offices.  In  an  article  by  Philip  L.  Allen,  in  the  Boston  Evening 
Transcript  of  May  23,  1906,  figures  were  given  showing  the  popu- 
lar vote  upon  various  laws  or  constitutional  amendments.  In 
the  instances  there  cited,  seventeen  in  number,  the  percentage 
of  this  vote  to  the  simultaneous  vote  for  public  officers  varied 
from  seventy-eight  to  nineteen.  In  eight  instances  the  vote 
was  less  than  fifty  per  cent ;  in  only  six  instances  did  it  exceed 
sixty  per  cent.  .  . 

Observation  shows  that  in  the  long  run  only  about  one-half 
of  the  voters  who  go  to  the  polls  will  take  the  trouble  to  vote 
upon  laws  submitted  to  them. 


340  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

These  comparisons  are  made  with  the  number  who  vote  for 
public  officers.  If  a  comparison  be  made  with  the  total  number 
of  the  legal  voters  of  the  state,  the  results  are  much  more  strik- 
ing. In  an  election  which  for  some  reason  calls  out  a  large  vote, 
as  in  a  presidential  year,  the  total  vote  cast  may  run  up  to  about 
eighty  per  cent  of  the  voters.  In  Wisconsin,  for  instance,  in 
1904,  the  vote  for  governor  was  seventy-eight  and  seven- tenths 
per  cent  of  the  voters.  In  a  year  in  which  the  general  interest 
is  not  so  great,  as  for  instance  in  a  so-called  "off"  year,  the  vote 
is  regularly  much  smaller.  In  Wisconsin,  in  1906,  the  vote  for 
governor  was  fifty-six  per  cent  of  the  voters.  If  only  sixty  to 
eighty  per  cent  of  the  voters  come  to  the  polls,  and  if  only  about 
one-half  of  these  vote  upon  referendum  matters,  even  a  unani- 
mous vote  in  favor  of  a  measure  means  its  adoption  by  a  minor- 
ity of  the  legal  voters  of  the  state. 

Statistical  studies  as  to  the  relative  intelligence  of  the  voters 
and  non-voters  upon  referendum  measures  are  unfortunately 
lacking.  .  . 

There  seems  to  be  little  reason  to  expect  that  the  better  ele- 
ment will  vote  any  more  strongly  at  a  referendum  than  at  a  regu- 
lar election.  The  "stay-at-home"  vote  would  be  the  same  uv 
both  cases.  There  is  no  indication  that  a  referendum  election 
tends  to  bring  to  the  polls  those  who  do  not  care  to  vote  for  the 
candidates  for  public  offices.  The  citizen  who  does  not  care  to 
go  to  the  polls  and  vote  for  governor  would  probably  not  be  at- 
tracted thither  by  a  chance  to  vote  against  a  proposed  law.  If 
our  present  political  agitation  does  not  stimulate  him  to  activity, 
there  is  little  hope  that  additional  demands  upon  his  time  would 
move  him.  It  may  also  be  questioned  whether  those  who  now 
neglect  their  political  duties  would  be  a  desirable  addition  to  a 
body  of  citizens  voting  upon  a  proposed  law. 

Taking  those  who  do  their  duty  in  this  respect,  who  regularly 
vote  at  the  polls,  may  we  assume  that  the  portion  of  these  elec- 
tors which  votes  for  or  against  pending  laws  represents  the  more 
intelligent  or  better  element  ?  It  is  commonly  considered  that 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  341 

much  of  the  trouble  encountered  in  the  working  of  our  present 
political  system  is  due  to  the  fact  that  those  who  ought  to  know 
better  ignore  their  political  duties.  The  more  intelligent  citi- 
zen, when  he  votes  at  all,  is  unfortunately  too  apt  to  confine  his 
voting  to  the  election  of  officers  and  not  infrequently  he  indicates 
his  choice  for  only  a  portion  of  the  offices  to  be  filled.  He  does 
not  come  out  to  the  primaries  or  to  the  caucuses.  Can  we  then 
expect  that  the  better  element  will  constitute,  or  preponderate 
in,  the  body  which  votes  upon  pending  bills  ? 

What  of  the  other  sort  of  voter,  the  man  who  votes  at  least  as 
often  as  the  law  allows,  who  does  as  he  is  told  and  who  furnishes 
the  strength  of  the  machine  ?  Voting  on  a  few  laws  would  offer 
no  terror  to  him.  He  could  quickly  learn  where  to  make  the 
additional  marks  upon  the  ballot',  and  he  would  remember  what 
was  expected  of  him.  There  would  therefore  seem  to  be  little 
hope  that  the  vote  on  a  law  would  express  any  higher  public 
opinion  than  the  vote  for  the  members  of  the  legislature.  .  . 

If  we  admit,  as  I  think  we  must,  that  the  proper  goal  of  legis- 
lation is  a  better  and  more  intelligent  consideration  of  pending 
measures,  we  must  acknowledge  that  the  referendum  brings  us 
no  nearer  that  goal.  In  fact,  it  probably  takes  us  in  the  other 
direction.  The  consideration  which  the  vast  majority  of  voters 
can  give  to  a  measure  submitted  to  them  is  necessarily  hasty  and 
superficial.  A  careful  examination  of  even  a  few  laws,  in  the 
manner  which  I  have  indicated  as  necessary  for  a  proper  appre- 
ciation of  the  effect  of  one's  vote,  is  impossible  to  practically 
every  person  outside  of  the  legislature.  The  ordinary  voter 
has  little  or  no  time  to  give  to  the  examination  of  bills  which 
may  be  presented  to  him.  If  he  has  the  time,  he  seldom  has  the 
facilities  for  obtaining  the  information  that  is  needed  if  he  is  to 
vote  in  a  proper  manner.  Comparatively  few  voters  possess 
the  information  which  is  necessary  for  an  intelligent  judgment 
regarding  the  numerous  candidates  and  issues  of  our  various 
elections.  Until  the  voters  meet  these  existing  obligations  im- 
posed by  our  political  system,  obligations  which  cannot  be  done 


342  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

away  with  by  any  system  of  initiative  or  referendum,  we  should 
hesitate  to  place  new  burdens  upon  them. 

The  referendum  tends  to  place  the  emphasis  at  the  wrong  end 
of  the  legislative  work.  If  we  elect  good  men  to  the  legislatures 
the  needs  of  checks  of  this  kind  will  largely  pass  away.  The  agi- 
tation for  the  referendum  has  been  to  a  considerable  extent  due 
to  the  failure  of  the  voter  properly  to  perform  his  duties  as  an 
elector.  However  numerous  and  complex  the  causes  of  this 
failure  may  be,  one  cause  which  has  been  very  potent  is  the  public 
I  indifference  to  caucuses  and  elections.  If  this  public  indifference 
continues,  we  cannot  expect  that  the  referendum  will  be  success- 
ful. With  this  indifference  removed,  the  need  for  the  referendum 
will  no  longer  be  so  apparent. 

An  interest  in  referendum  measures  can  never  be  a  substi- 
tute for  an  interest  in  elections.  The  referendum  is  exceptional. 
It  can  never  be  expected  to  operate  upon  more  than  a  few  of  the 
many  laws  enacted.  The  bulk  of  our  legislation  must  continue 
to  proceed  from  our  legislatures,  unchecked  by  the  referendum. 
The  referendum  is  then  a  method  of  legislation  which  can  affect 
only  a  small  fraction  of  the  laws,  and  it  depends  for  its  efficiency 
upon  conditions  which,  if  realized,  would  make  its  employment 
largely  if  not  entirely  unnecessary. 

Against  the  initiative,  as  far  as  its  referendum  feature  is  con- 
cerned, the  same  objections  may  be  made  as  against  the  refer- 
endum when  used  alone.  The  popular  vote  upon  a  bill  proposed 
by  the  initiative  would  be  no  better  and  no  worse  than  on  a  bill 
passed  by  the  legislature.  The  initiative  would,  however,  add 
to  the  number  of  bills  to  be  voted  on  and  would  thus  decrease 
the  attention  which  the  voters  could  give  to  each  one. 

What  sort  of  bills  may  we  expect  to  see  proposed  under  the 
initiative  ?  It  is  not  especially  important  to  determine  whether 
they  will  be  conservative  or  radical.  If  the  system  is  worthy  of 
adoption,  undesirable  bills  will  be  eliminated  by  the  referendum. 
The  question  is  as  to  the  form  of  the  bills.  Is  it  to  be  expected 
that  they  will  be  so  worded  as  to  accomplish  the  desired  ends  ? 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  343 

Practically  every  bill  which  comes  before  an  American  legis- 
lature is  originally  introduced  in  such  form  that  its  passage  would 
be  extremely  unfortunate.  It  is  probably  not  too  much  to  say 
that  nearly  all  bills  are,  in  their  original  form,  crude  and  un- 
workable. These  bills  —  and  the  same  would  be  true  of  those 
proposed  by  initiative  petition  —  are  the  product  of  one  man  or 
of  a  small  group  of  men.  Even  when  based  on  a  careful  and  con- 
scientious study  of  the  subject,  they  have  the  shortcomings  in- 
evitable from  the  limitations  surrounding  their  origin.  Before 
they  can  even  approximate  perfection,  they  need  the  public  dis- 
cussion, the  criticism  of  opposing  interests,  the  suggestions  of 
foes  as  well  as  of  friends.  The  process  of  amendment  and  re- 
amendment,  which  is  possible  only  in  a  legislature,  is  necessary 
to  the  normal  growth  of  a  bill  into  a  law. 

Every  subject  of  importance  is  apt  to  be  covered  by  several 
bills.  None  of  these  is  perfect;  each  probably  has  something 
of  merit.  In  the  legislature,  these  bills  can  be  considered  to- 
gether ;  the  good  portions  of  each  can  be  accepted  and  the  bad 
rejected.  No  such  procedure  can  be  followed  in  the  case  of  ini- 
tiative measures.  If  several  similar  bills  are  proposed  by  peti- 
tion, they  cannot  be  amended  and  combined.  One  must  be  se- 
lected and  the  others  rejected,  unless,  as  is  entirely  possible,  more 
than  one  act  dealing  with  the  same  subject  is  adopted  by  the 
popular  vote. 

The  failure  of  the  referendum  to  afford  opportunity  for  ade- 
quate discussion  has  already  been  noted.  This  defect  will  be 
felt  much  more  keenly  in  the  case  of  bills  proposed  by  initiative 
petition  than  in  the  case  of  bills  which  pass  the  legislature  in  the 
regular  way  before  they  are  submitted  to  the  referendum.  In 
the  latter  case,  discussion  in  the  legislature  enables  that  body  to 
bring  the  bill  into  something  like  proper  shape.  In  the  former 
case  all  the  advantages  of  such  discussion,  all  the  suggestions  to 
be  derived  from  the  arguments  of  interests  adversely  affected  by 
the  bill,  all  the  amendments  that  might  be  made  by  parties  in- 
terested in  its  passage,  are  lost.  Intelligent  legislation  is  not 


344  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

promoted  by  a  system  which  treats  a  bill,  in  the  shape  in  which 
it  is  presented  to  a  legislature,  as  a  finality. 

An  illustration  of  the  difference  between  initiative  and  regular 
legislation  is  found  in  the  "anti-pass"  law  of  the  state  of  Oregon. 
In  1906  a  bill  covering  this  subject  was  submitted  by  initiative 
petition  and  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  57,281  for,  and  16,709 
against.  This  bill  was  so  poorly  worded  that,  upon  a  literal 
reading,  it  forbade  a  railroad  from  issuing  passes  to  its  own  em- 
ployees but  allowed  it  to  issue  them  to  the  employees  of  other 
roads.  Fortunately  the  act  was  not  effective,  because  of  the 
absence  of  an  enacting  clause.  The  legislature  of  1907  passed 
a  general  railroad  law  in  which  the  subject  of  passes  was  covered 
in  a  proper  and  intelligible  manner. 

The  failure  of  the  initiative  to  afford  opportunity  for  amend- 
ment is  met  to  some  extent  in  the  system  adopted  in  Maine  and 
pending  in  North  Dakota.  In  these  states,  the  legislature  may 
reject  the  initiative  bill  and  propose  a  substitute.  In  such  a 
case  both  bills  are  submitted  to  popular  vote,  and  the  voters  are 
called  upon  to  choose  between  them.  This  device  enables  the 
legislature  to  correct  faults  in  the  proposed  legislation.  The 
substitute  will  undoubtedly  be  far  superior  to  the  initiative  bill. 
The  existence  of  the  two  bills  will,  however,  complicate  greatly 
the  work  of  the  people.  The  voting  upon  a  single  bill  is  difficult 
enough;  the  choosing  between  competing  bills  will  be  much 
more  difficult. 

The  most  that  can  be  claimed  for  the  initiative  is  that  it 
forces  the  legislature  to  act.  The  laws  resulting  from  this  co- 
ercion will  in  most  cases  be  crude  and  unscientific.  From  the 
point  of  view  of  the  improvement  of  our  legislation  in  the  matter 
of  form,  they  will  mark  a  long  step  backward.  .  . 

One  other  and  very  fundamental  objection  may  be  made  both 
to  the  referendum  and  to  the  initiative.  They  tend  to  weaken 
the  sense  of  legislative  responsibility.  With  the  referendum  the 
legislator  does  not  vote  for  or  against  a  bill,  he  votes  to  give  the 
people  an  opportunity  to  vote  on  it.  He  does  not  need  to  ex- 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  345 

press  his  own  opinion.  He  may  say  that  his  views  are  imma- 
terial, that  even  if  he  is  opposed  to  a  bill  it  would  be  unjust  to  re- 
fuse to  allow  the  people  a  chance  to  express  themselves.  This 
feeling  will  affect  his  attitude  towards  all  bills,  irrespective  of 
the  question  whether  they  are  actually  to  be  subjected  to  a  refer- 
endum vote.  Every  bill  may  be  thus  subjected,  and  if  no  peti- 
tion is  filed  concerning  a  particular  measure,  the  people  may  be 
considered  to  have  ratified  it.  They  have  had  the  opportunity 
to  act,  and  if  they  remain  quiescent  the  responsibility  for  the 
bill  rests  with  them,  not  with  the  legislature. 

The  initiative  would  also  shift  responsibility.  If  new  laws 
are  needed,  they  may  be  submitted  by  the  initiative  petition. 
If  the  legislators  do  not  propose  the  measures  needed,  they 
are  not  to  be  blamed.  The  failure  of  the  people  to  use  their 
initiative  indicates  that  they  do  not  desire  action  upon  the 
matter. 

The  diffusion  of  responsibility  which  would  result  from  shift- 
ing the  burden  of  legislative  reform  from  the  few  to  the  many 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  teachings  of  political  experience. 
The  way  to  get  good  government  is  not  to  scatter  the  responsi- 
bility among  a  number,  so  that  each  can  dodge  the  blame  if  the 
work  goes  ill  or  claim  the  credit  if  it  goes  well.  The  approved 
way  is  to  make  each  responsible  for  his  appointed  task  and  to 
hold  him  rigidly  to  that  responsibility. 

3.     OBJECTIONS   TO   DIRECT  LEGISLATION  EXAMINED1 

Advocates  of  direct  legislation  believe  that  the  realization 
of  his  increased  responsibility  and  influence  in  deciding  the 
laws  by  which  he  will  be  governed  will  lead  the  average  man 
to  a  greater  interest  in  public  affairs. 

Nor  indeed  are  the  evils  which  it  is  prophesied  will  come 
with  direct  legislation  attributable  to  it,  for  they  exist  under 
our  present  party  system  and  would,  it  is  insisted,  not  be  increased 
by  the  adoption  of  direct  legislation. 

1  Lobingier,  C.  S.,  Arena,  Vol.  XXXIV,  pp.  234-240, 1905. 


346  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

The  attitude  of  expert  and  professional  opinion  has  not,  as 
a  whole,  been  favorable  to  the  extension  of  the  Swiss  referendum. 
.  .  An  examination  of  the  literature  of  the  subject  will  dis- 
close that  the  chief  objections  urged  by  these  opponents  of  the 
referendum  may  be  reduced  to  four,  viz. :  (i)  Indifference  of 
electors;  (2)  complexity  of  legislation  and  incapacity  of  elec- 
tors; (3)  obliteration  of  distinction  between  constitutional  and 
other  law,  and  (4)  impairment  of  legislative  influence. 

Of  these  the  first  is  the  one  most  frequently  and  insistently 
urged.  .  .  So  M.  Deploige,  a  Belgian  critic,  who  is  none  too 
friendly,  declares  of  the  referendum :  "It  is  a  little  ridiculous  to 
talk  of  legislation  by  the  people  when  more  than  one-half  the 
citizens  refuse  to  exercise  their  legislative  rights." 

But  it  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  the  opponents  of  direct- 
legislation  that  this  line  of  argument  would  tell  quite  as  strongly 
against  a  cherished  American  practice  —  the  submission  of  con- 
stitutions to  a  popular  vote.  Judge  Simeon  E.  Baldwin,  speak- 
ing of  a  state  where  submission  has  been  followed  from  the  first, 
says :  "Experience  shows  that  much  less  interest  is  taken  by  the 
people  in  propositions  for  constitutional  amendments  than  in 
elections  to  office.  The  personal  element  is  always  wanting, 
and,  generally,  that  of  party  advantage."  .  . 

Now  the  benefits  of  popular  ratification  form  a  subject  on 
which  there  is  a  practical  unanimity  of  opinion  among  the 
publicists  of  the  present  day.  Professor  Hart  himself  observes : 
"  In  the  United  States  we  have  already  the  good  effects  of  the 
referendum,  so  far  as  it  deals  with  changes  of  the  constitutions, 
the  permanent  and  superior  part  of  our  law." 

Among  these  "good  effects"  are,  it  is  generally  conceded,  the 
permanence  of  constitutions  and  the  educational  influence  upon 
the  electors  —  all  this  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  a  large  percentage 
apparently  fails  to  exercise  the  privilege.  It  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand why  similar  advantages  might  not  accrue  by  applying  the 
system  to  ordinary  legislation. 

Moreover,  in  some  parts  of  the  country,  at  least,  the  voters 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  347 

display  a  growing  appreciation  of  their  function  as  constitution- 
makers.  Thus  in  California,  during  a  period  of  a  dozen  years, 
in  which  some  twenty-eight  amendments  were  submitted,  an 
average  of  about  two-thirds  of  those  voting  at  the  election  availed 
themselves  of  their  right  to  pass  upon  these  proposed  changes  in 
the  fundamental  law.  On  the  question  of  extending  the  fran- 
chise to  women,  which  was  submitted  at  a  presidential  election, 
83.4  per  cent  of  those  voting  for  presidential  candidates  regis- 
tered their  choice,  while  the  lowest  constitutional  vote  during 
the  period  was  39.4  per  cent,  which  was  cast  on  an  amendment 
to  which  there  was  little  opposition.  In  Texas  and  other  states 
of  the  South  and  West,  the  figures  reveal  on  the  part  of  the  elec- 
torate an  increasing  interest  in  constitution-making.  .  . 

A  light  vote  on  constitutional  amendments  may  also  frequently 
be  explained  by  the  comparative  unimportance  of  some,  or,  on 
the  other  hand,  by  the  strong  probability  of  their  adoption  on 
account  of  their  general  acceptance,  or  for  some  other  reason. 

But  conceding  that  the  electors  do  fail  to  take  as  much  interest 
in  abstract  questions  in  the  form  of  proposed  constitutions  and 
laws  as  in  the  election  of  candidates,  does  it  follow  that  the  sys- 
tem of  direct  popular  action  is  a  failure  or  that  the  state's  in- 
terests would  be  promoted  by  discarding  it  ? 

"The  lack  of  an  absolutely  full  vote  on  any  question/'  says 
Mr.  Moffett,  .  .  .  "is  not  a  disadvantage  but  the  reverse.  It 
means  that  only  those  who  feel  some  interest  in  the  subject,  and 
are  therefore  prepared  to  act  with  a  certain  intelligence,  take  the 
trouble  to  vote,  and  that  the  members  of  the  unintelligent 
residuum  voluntarily  disfranchise  themselves." 

It  may  be,  and  apparently  is,  true  that  more  electors  will  go 
to  the  polls  to  vote  for  certain  individuals  for  office  than  will 
exercise  the  higher  privilege  of  determining  the  character  of  the 
state's  laws.  In  other  words,  a  personal  and  concrete  subject 
arouses  greater  interest  than  an  impersonal  and  abstract  one.  But 
it  surely  will  not  be  claimed  that  those  who  vote  simply  for  candi- 
dates and  fail  to  vote  on  proposed  laws  are  actuated  by  patriotic 


348  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

or  even  intelligent  motives.  We  have  seen  that  the  framers  of  the 
first  popularly-adopted  American  state  constitution  sought  to 
make  ours  "a  government  of  laws,  not  of  men  " ;  the  voter  who 
goes  to  the  polls  because,  and  merely  because,  he  wishes  one  or 
more  individuals  elected  to  office  and  who  ignores  the  oppor- 
tunity to  express  his  choice  concerning  the  laws,  must  be  deemed 
to  be  more  interested  in  the  fortunes  of  individuals  than  in  the 
welfare  of  the  state  and  to  have  failed  to  attain  a  high  standard 
of  good  citizenship. 

M.  Simon  Deploige,  in  his  objections  to  the  referendum,  de- 
clares :  — 

"The  elector  who  writes  Aye  or  No  on  his  ballot-paper  per- 
forms an  act,  the  apparent  simplicity  of  which  has  attracted  the 
democrats,  but  this  act  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  a  very  complex 
one.  It  requires  that  each  voter  should  be  able  not  only  to  un- 
derstand why  legislation  is  necessary,  but  also  should  be  able  to 
judge  whether  the  law  in  question  is  adequate  to  meet  the  case. 
Nothing  effectual  has  as  yet  been  devised  which  would  assist  the 
elector  in  forming  a  personal  opinion  on  such  a  subject." 

But  it  may  well  be  asked  if  this  is  not  after  all  an  indictment 
of  popular  government  in  general  rather  than  merely  of  popular 
legislation,  and  whether  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  people  are  not 
now,  in  the  last  analysis,  required  to  determine  these  questions 
but  to  do  so  under  a  system  which  disguises  and  conceals  the 
fact  that  they  are  involved  ?  When  the  American  electorate  is 
called  upon  to  choose  a  president  or  a  congress,  or  when  the  Brit- 
ish voter  is  asked  to  register  his  choice  for  members  of  parlia- 
ment, the  result  usually  determines  the  fate  of  important  meas- 
ures vitally  affecting  the  national  policy.  But  these  are  not 
the  questions  most  discussed  in  the  campaign  before  the  people. 
Instead  of  simplifying  the  voter's  task  the  present  system  too 
often  complicates  it  by  involving  the  merits  of  a  question  with 
others,  like  the  personality  of  candidates,  or  the  necessity  of 
party  success.  .  . 

Mr.  A.  Lawrence  Lowell,  in  an  elaborate  article,  says :  — 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  349 

"Our  whole  political  system  rests  on  the  distinction  between 
constitutional  and  other  laws.  The  former  are  the  solemn  prin- 
ciples laid  down  by  the  people  in  its  ultimate  sovereignty;  the 
latter  are  regulations  made  by  its  representatives  within  the 
limits  of  their  authority,  and  the  courts  can  hold  unauthorized 
and  void  any  act  which  exceeds  those  limits.  The  courts  can 
do  this  because  they  are  maintaining  against  the  legislature  the 
fundamental  principles  which  the  people  themselves  have  deter- 
mined to  support,  and  they  can  do  it  only  so  long  as  the  people 
feel  that  the  constitution  is  something  more  sacred  and  endur- 
ing than  ordinary  laws,  something  that  derives  its  force  from 
a  higher  authority.  Now,  if  all  laws  received  their  sanction 
from  a  direct  popular  vote,  this  distinction  would  disappear. 
There  would  cease  to  be  any  reason  for  considering  one  law  more 
sacred  than  another,  and  hence  our  courts  would  soon  lose  their 
power  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  statutes." 

But  the  referendum  is  not  a  system  under  which  "all  laws  re- 
ceive their  sanction  from  a  direct  popular  vote."  Its  adoption 
means  not  the  abolition  of  the  legislature  but  primarily  the 
maintenance  of  a  wholesome  check  thereon,  and  at  most  the  pro- 
viding of  an  alternative  system.  In  Switzerland  the  bulk  of 
legislation  is  still  enacted  by  the  representative  body. 

Moreover,  there  are  those  who  would  not  consider  it  a  serious 
calamity  if  our  courts  should  lose  some  of  "  their  power  to  pass 
upon  the  constitutionality  of  statutes."  In  this  day  when  im- 
portant and  beneficial  statutes  are  often  annulled  on  purely  tech- 
nical grounds,  —  when  inferior  courts  and  even  ministerial  offi- 
cers assume  to  pass  upon  the  constitutionality  of  laws,  —  the 
adoption  of  a  system  which  would  necessarily  check  this  tend- 
ency could  hardly  be  regarded  as  an  unmixed  evil. 

Finally  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  this  objection  is  not 
peculiar  to  the  referendum,  but  that  it  could  be  made  and  has 
been  made  in  reference  to  popular  constitution-making.  Wood- 
row  Wilson  declares  that  in  our  recent  fundamental  codes  "the 
distinctions  between  constitutional  and  ordinary  law  hitherto 


350  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

recognized  and  valued,  tend  to  be  fatally  obscured,"  and  it  is 
common  to  deplore  the  tendency  of  the  framers  of  these  instru- 
ments to  encroach  on  the  field  of  general  legislation.  But 
whether  or  not  this  tendency  is  as  dangerous  as  is  claimed,  it 
seems  unlikely  to  be  prevented  by  keeping  out  the  referendum. 

Professor  Dicey,  speaking  with  reference  to  the  British  legis- 
lature, says :  — 

"  The  referendum  diminishes  the  importance  of  parliamentary 
debate  and  thereby  detracts  from  the  influence  of  parliament. 
That  this  must  be  so  admits  of  no  denial ;  a  veto,  whether  it  be 
exercised  by  a  king  or  by  an  electorate,  lessens  the  power  of  the 
legislature." 

Mr.  Bryce  expresses  the  same  thought  when  he  says  that 
direct  popular  legislation  "tends  to  lower  the  authority  and 
sense  of  responsibility  in  the  legislature." 

But  the  loss  of  legislative  influence  is  already  an  accomplished 
fact. 

"The  American  people,"  declares  Professor  Commons,  "are 
fairly  content  with  their  executive  and  judicial  departments  of 
government,  but  they  feel  that  their  law-making  bodies  have 
painfully  failed.  This  conviction  pertains  to  all  grades  of  legis- 
latures, municipal,  state  and  federal.  The  newspapers  speak 
what  the  people  feel ;  and  judging  therefrom  it  is  popular  to  de- 
nounce aldermen,  legislators  and  congressmen.  When  congress 
is  in  session,  the  business  interests  are  reported  to  be  in  agony 
until  it  adjourns.  The  cry  that  rises  towards  the  end  of  a 
legislature's  session  is  humiliating.  .  .  This  demoralization  of 
legislative  bodies,  these  tendencies  to  restrict  legislation,  must 
be  viewed  as  a  profoundly  alarming  feature  of  American  poli- 
tics." .  . 

Indeed,  instead  of  impairing  the  prestige  of  legislatures  the 
referendum  seems  to  offer  the  one  means  of  saving  what  little 
of  it  still  remains.  Probably  the  one  fact  which  has  contributed 
more  than  any  other  to  lower  the  tone  and  standing  of  legisla- 
tive bodies  is  the  presence  and  influence  of  the  lobby.  If  im- 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  351 

portant  measures  were  subject  to  a  reference  to  the  people  be- 
fore attaining  the  finality  of  legislation  the  power  and  influence 
of  the  lobby  would  be  greatly  reduced,  if  not  destroyed.  Such, 
at  least,  has  been  the  experience  of  South  Dakota  as  declared  by 
its  chief  executive. 

These,  then,  are  the  results  of  a  somewhat  extensive  search 
for  the  opinions  of  those  who  are  supposed  to  speak  with  au- 
thority in  opposition  to  the  referendum.  The  arguments  ad- 
vanced and  the  reasons  given  seem  far  from  convicting.  This  is 
not  saying  that  there  are  no  sound  objections  to  the  referendum. 
But  if  that  system  is  to  be  condemned  by  the  masters  of  political 
science  it  would  seem  that  they  must  do  so  upon  other  grounds 
than  those  commonly  urged. 

4.     THE  RECALL  IN  OREGON1 

The  recall  is  the  latest  expedient  to  secure  popular  control 
over  the  government.  Like  direct  legislation,  it  is  as  yet  in 
its  experimental  stage  in  America.  As  in  direct  legislation  the 
provisions  adopted  by  Oregon  for  the  recall  are  typical  of  the 
more  advanced  political  thought. 

The  final  step  in  the  establishment  of  popular  government  in 
Oregon  was  the  adoption  of  the  recall  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution, which  was  adopted  in  1908  by  a  vote  of  58,381  to  31- 
002.  Under  this  amendment  any  public  officer  may  be  recalled 
by  the  filing  of  a  petition  signed  by  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the 
number  of  electors  who  voted  in  his  district  in  the  preceding 
election.  The  petition  must  set  forth  the  reasons  for  the  recall, 
and  if  the  officer  does  not  resign  within  five  days  after  the  peti- 
tion is  filed  a  special  election  must  be  ordered  to  be  held  within 
twenty  days  to  determine  whether  the  people  will  recall  such 
officer.  On  the  ballot  at  such  election  the  reasons  for  demanding 
the  recall  of  said  officer  may  be  set  forth  in  not  more  than  200 

1  Bourne,  Jr.,  J., "  Popular  Government  in  Oregon."  Outlook,  Oct.  8/1910 ; 
Vol.  96,  No.  6,  p.  329. 


Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

words.  His  justification  of  his  course  in  office  may  be  set  forth 
in  a  like  number  of  words.  He  retains  his  office  until  the  results 
of  the  special  election  have  been  officially  declared.  No  petition 
can  be  circulated  against  any  officer  until  he  has  held  office  six 
months,  except  that  in  the  case  of  a  member  of  the  State  Legis- 
lature it  may  be  filed  at  any  time  after  five  days  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  first  session  after  his  election.  At  the  special  election 
the  candidate  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes  is  declared 
elected.  The  special  election  is  held  at  public  expense,  but  a 
second  recall  petition  cannot  be  filed  against  an  officer  unless 
the  petitioners  first  pay  the  entire  expense  of  the  first  recall 
election. 


5.     THE  RECALL  IN  ARIZONA  1 

Arizona  in  the  constitution  of  1910  has  applied  the  recall 
to  a  wider  range  of  officers  than  any  other  state.  The  recall 
applied  to  the  judiciary  has  been  especially  the  subject  of  criti- 
cism because  it  is  feared  such  a  provision  will  make  the  courts 
bend  their  decisions  to  conform  to  passing  popular  opinion. 

i.    Recall  of  Public  Officers 

Sec.  i.  Every  public  officer  in  the  State  of  Arizona,  holding 
an  elective  office,  either  by  election  or  appointment,  is  subject 
to  recall  from  such  office  by  the  qualified  electors  of  the  elec- 
toral district  from  which  candidates  are  elected  to  such  office. 
Such  electoral  district  may  include  the  whole  State.  Such  num- 
ber of  said  electors  as  shall  equal  twenty-five  per  centum  of  the 
number  of  votes  cast  at  the  last  preceding  general  election  for  all 
of  the  candidates  for  the  office  held  by  such  officer,  may  by  peti- 
tion, which  shall  be  known  as  a  Recall  Petition,  demand  his 
recall. 

1  Constitution  of  Arizona,  Art.  VIII,  1910.  By  the  enabling  act  passed 
in  1911  Arizona  was  required  to  modify  this  article  so  that  the  recall 
should  not  apply  to  judges. 


Direct  Legislation  and  the  Recall  353 

Sec.  2.  Every  Recall  Petition  must  contain  a  general  state- 
ment, in  not  more  than  two  hundred  words,  of  the  grounds  of 
such  demand,  and  must  be  filed  in  the  office  in  which  petitions 
for  nominations  to  the  office  held  by  the  incumbent  are  required 
to  be  filed.  The  signatures  to  such  Recall  Petition  need  not  all 
be  on  one  sheet  of  paper,  but  each  signer  must  add  to  his  signa- 
ture the  date  of  his  signing  said  petition,  and  his  place  of  resi- 
dence, giving  his  street  and  number,  if  any,  should  he  reside  in  a 
town  or  city.  One  of  the  signers  of  each  sheet  of  such  petition, 
or  the  person  circulating  such  sheet,  must  make  and  subscribe 
an  oath  on  said  sheet,  that  the  signatures  thereon  are  genuine. 

Sec.  3.  If  said  officer  shall  offer  his  resignation  it  shall  be  ac- 
cepted, and  the  vacancy  shall  be  filled  as  maybe  provided  by  law. 
If  he  shall  not  resign  within  five  days  after  a  Recall  Petition  is 
filed,  a  special  election  shall  be  ordered  to  be  held,  not  less  than 
twenty,  nor  more  than  thirty  days  after  such  order,  to  determine 
whether  such  officer  shall  be  recalled.  On  the  ballots  at  said 
election  shall  be  printed  the  reasons  as  set  forth  in  the  petition 
for  demanding  his  recall,  and,  in  not  more  than  two  hundred 
words,  the  officer's  justification  of  his  course  in  office.  He  shall 
continue  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office  until  the  result  of  said 
election  shall  have  been  officially  declared. 

Sec.  4.  Unless  he  otherwise  request,  in  writing,  his  name  shall 
be  placed  as  a  candidate  on  the  official  ballot  without  nomina- 
tion. Other  candidates  for  the  office  may  be  nominated  to  be 
voted  for  at  said  election.  The  candidate  who  shall  receive  the 
highest  number  of  votes,  shall  be  declared  elected  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  term.  Unless  the  incumbent  receive  the  highest 
number  of  votes,  he  shall  be  deemed  to  be  removed  from  office, 
upon  qualification  of  his  successor.  In  the  event  that  his  suc- 
cessor shall  not  qualify  within  five  days  after  the  result  of  said 
election  shall  have  been  declared,  the  said  office  shall  be  vacant, 
and  may  be  filled  as  provided  by  law. 

Sec.  5.  No  Recall  Petition  shall  be  circulated  against  any 
officer  until  he  shall  have  held  his  of&ce  for  a  period  of  six  months, 

2A 


354  Readings  on  Parties  and  Elections 

except  that  it  may  be  filed  against  a  member  of  the  Legislature 
at  any  time  after  five  days  from  the  beginning  of  the  first  session 
after  his  election.  After  one  Recall  Petition  and  election,  no 
further  Recall  Petition  shall  be  filed  against  the  same  officer  dur- 
ing the  term  for  which  he  was  elected,  unless  petitioners  signing 
such  petition  shall  first  pay  into  the  public  treasury  which  has 
paid  such  election  expenses,  all  expenses  of  the  preceding  election. 
Sec.  6.  The  general  election  laws  shall  apply  to  recall  elections 
in  so  far  as  applicable.  Laws  necessary  to  facilitate  the  opera- 
tion of  the  provisions  of  this  article  shall  be  enacted,  including 
provision  for  payment  by  the  public  treasury  of  the  reasonable 
special  election  campaign  expenses  of  such  officer. 


*HE  following  pages  contain  advertisements  of  a 
few  Macmillan  books  on  kindred  subjects 


BY  M.   OSTROGORSKI 

Democracy  and  the  Party  System  in  the 
United  States 

A  Study  in  Extra-constitutional  Government 

Cloth,  478  pp.,  index,  ismo,  $1.75  net;  by  mail,  $1.88 

"  Students  of  government,  the  world  over,  will  turn  to  this  book  for  exact 
information  and  critical  discussion  of  its  most  vital  problem." — The  Dial, 
Chicago. 

"  It  would  be  an  astonishing  book  had  it  been  written  by  an  Englishman 
or  an  American  who  had  spent  a  lifetime  in  the  study  and  practice  of  politics. 
Coming  as  it  does  from  the  pen  of  a  foreign  student,  it  is  simply  an  amazing 
embodiment  of  minute  observation  and  extraordinary  knowledge."  —  Man- 
chester Guardian. 

"  It  should  stand  beside  Mr.  Bryce's  great  work,  as  a  book  which  will 
avail  as  much  for  instruction  and  correction  in  righteousness.  The  gratitude 
of  democracy  to  its  accomplished  author  should  be  great;  republics  in  the 
end  are  not  ungrateful."  —  The  Literary  World,  Boston. 

"  The  work  of  M.  Ostrogorski,  great  in  every  respect,  continues  and  com- 
pletes the  work  of  Tocqueville,  Sumner,  Maine,  Lecky,  and  Bryce."  —  UAnnec 
Sociologique,  Paris. 

"  This  is  a  work,  a  great  work,  which  claims  the  attention  of  the  politician 
and  of  the  citizen,  speaks  of  his  rights,  as  well  as  of  the  philosopher  and  the 
historian.  It  makes  an  epoch  in  the  history  of  political  thought  as  did,  in 
their  time,  the  «  Esprit  des  lois '  by  Montesquieu,  and  '  Democracy  in  America,' 
by  Tocqueville." — Le  Temps,  Paris. 

"This  is  a  great  work  such  as  has  not  yet  even  been  published."  —  Revue 
du  droit public,  Paris. 

"  It  is  one  of  the  most  notable  books  which  has  been  written  about  the 
workings  of  democratic  institutions.  It  goes  beyond  the  forms,  and  ...  it 
gets  at  the  reality  of  things. "  —  New  York  Tribune. 

"  The  author's  style  is  such  that  it  is  no  hardship  to  follow  him  from  be- 
ginning to  end  of  his  discussion."  —  New  York  Times. 

"  The  remarkable  work  by  Mr.  Ostrogorski  ...  is  undoubtedly  one  of  the 
most  notable  books  in  political  science  that  has  appeared  in  many  years.  .  .  . 
The  author  merits  great  praise  for  his  industry  in  gathering  facts  and  his  skill  in 
making  so  long  and  elaborate  a  work  so  readable."  —  Springjield Republican. 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  Tork 


The  American  Federal  State 

A  Text-Book  in  Civics  for  High  Schools  and  Colleges 

BY  ROSCOE  LEWIS  ASHLEY 


New  edition,  illustrated,  doth,  izmo,  $2.00  net 


The  important  changes  in  this  new  edition  are  chiefly  in  Part  III  on 
Policies  and  Problems,  while  Part  I  on  Historical  Development  and  Part  II 
on  Government  are  substantially  the  same  as  in  the  old  edition.  In  Part  II, 
however,  the  chapters  on  Executive  Departments  and  Some  Phases  of  State 
Activity  have  been  rewritten,  so  as  to  include  developments  of  the  last 
•iecade.  In  Part  III  a  new  chapter  has  been  added  on  Natural  Resources, 
while  the  chapter  on  Commerce,  Industry,  and  Labor  is  practically  new, 
because  of  increased  regulation  of  industry  and  railroads,  and  new  phases  of 
labor  protection.  A  large  number  of  new  references  has  been  added  through- 
out the  book. 

If  every  American  youth  were  led  through  a  conscientious  study  of 
American  civics  as  set  forth  in  this  book,  there  would  be  no  more  ignorant 
voting,  no  more  unintelligent  support  of  party  politicians,  no  more  "  railroad 
legislation"  because  of  ignorant  party  followers;  every  citizen  of  the  coming 
generation  would  know,  definitely  and  clearly,  the  how  and  the  why  of  every 
phase  of  governmental  machinery. 

Although  this  book  contains  more  material  and  outlines  a  more  com- 
plete study  of  civics  than  most  text -books  on  the  subject,  the  author  has 
arranged  a  plan  by  which  more  cursory  study  may  be  made,  using  only 
parts  of  the  book.  High  school  and  even  grammar  school  teachers  will 
find  this  plan  of  unusual  merit. 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE  MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


BY  CHARLES  A.  BEARD 

Professor  of  History  in  Columbia  University,  author  of 
"  Introduction  to  the  English  Historians." 

Readings  in  American  Government  and  Politics 

A  collection  of  interesting  material  illustrative  of  the  different  periods 
in  the  history  of  the  United  States,  prepared  for  those  students 
who  desire  to  study  source  writings. 

Cloth,  crown  8w.    Now  Ready,  $1.90  net 

"  An  invaluable  guide  for  the  student  of  politics,  setting  forth  in  an 
illuminating  way  the  many  phases  of  our  political  life."  —  Critic. 

American  Government  and  Politics 

Cloth,  776  Pages,  I2tno,  index,  $2.10  net 

A  work  designed  primarily  for  college  students,  but  of  considerable  in- 
terest to  the  general  reader.  A  special  feature  is  the  full  attention  paid  to 
topics  that  have  been  forced  into  public  attention  by  the  political  conditions 
of  the  present  time. 


BY  WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD   DUNNING,   PH.D. 

Professor  of  History  in  Columbia  University 

A  History  of  Political  Theories 

2  Volumes 

I  —  ANCIENT  AND  MEDIEVAL 
II  —  FROM  LUTHER  TO  MONTESQUIEU 

Cloth,  8vo,  each  $2.50  net 

The  successive  transformations  through  which  the  political  consciousness 
of  men  has  passed  from  early  antiquity  to  modern  times  are  stated  in  a  clear, 
intelligible  manner,  and  to  aid  in  a  fuller  study  of  the  subject  references  are 
appended  to  each  chapter  covering  the  topics  treated  therein.  At  the  end  of 
each  volume  has  been  placed  an  alphabetical  list  containing  full  information 
as  to  all  the  works  referred  to,  together  with  many  additional  titles. 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


A  GREAT  WORK  INCREASED  IN  VALUE 


The  American   Commonwealth 

BY   JAMES    BRYCE 


New  edition,  thoroughly  revised,  with  four  new  chapters 
Two  8vo  volumes  $4.00  net 


"  More  emphatically  than  ever  is  it  the  most  noteworthy  treatise  on  our 
political  and  social  system."  —  The  Dial. 

"The  most  sane  and  illuminating  book  that  has  been  written  on  this 
country."  —  Chicago  Tribune. 

"  What  makes  it  extremely  interesting  is  that  it  gives  the  matured  views 
of  Mr.  Bryce  after  a  closer  study  of  American  institutions  for  nearly  the  life 
of  a  generation."  —  San  Francisco  Chronicle. 

"The  work  is  practically  new  and  more  indispensable  than  ever."  — 
Boston  Herald. 

"In  its  revised  form,  Mr.  Bryce's  noble  and  discerning  book  deserves 
to  hold  its  preeminent  place  for  at  least  twenty  years  more."  —  Record- 
Herald,  Chicago,  111. 


The  American  Commonwealth 

Abridged  Edition,  for  the  use  of  Colleges  and  High  Schools.  Being 
an  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Government  and  Institutions 
of  the  United  States.  By  JAMES  BRYCE. 

One  volume.    Crown  8vo,  xiii  +  547  pages,  $1.75  net 

"It  is  a  genuine  pleasure  to  commend  to  our  readers  the  abridged 
edition  of  'The  American  Commonwealth'  just  issued  by  the  Macmillan 
Company.  Mr.  Bryce's  book,  which  has  heretofore  been  issued  only  in  two 
volumes,  has  no  peer  as  a  commentary  upon  American  political  institutions."  — 
Public  Opinion. 


PUBLISHED    BY 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


The  Government  of  England 


BY  A.   LAWRENCE    LOWELL,  LL.D. 

President  of  Harvard  University 

Two  volumes,  doth,  gill  tops,  8vo.    Fourth  edition,  revised,  1909.     $4.00  net 

EXTRACTS  FROM  A  FEW  OF  THE  NUMEROUS  PRESS 
COMMENTS 

"...  A  masterpiece  of  literary  and  political  writing.  ...  A  notable 
contribution  to  higher  American  scholarship."  —  Philadelphia  Evening 
Telegraph. 

"...  The  greatest  work  in  this  field  that  has  ever  been  produced  by  an 
American  scholar."  —  Pittsburgh  Post. 

"A  work  that  may  almost  be  termed  epochal.  .  .  .  An  achievement  of 
greater  importance  to  the  student  of  economics  and  to  the  publicist  has  not 
been  completed  within  the  decade."  —  The  Interior,  Chicago. 

"A  message  of  good  will  from  one  nation  to  another  ...  an  admirable 
work  ...  an  embassy  of  peace."  —  Chicago  Evening  Post. 

"  An  intensely  interesting  work  for  Americans,  not  only  because  it  sets  forth 
a  fine  instance  of  political  evolution  in  an  illuminating  way,  but  also  because 
it  shows  us  the  great  roots  out  of  which  our  own  institutions  sprang.  Readers 
of  Mr.  Bryce's  '  American  Commonwealth '  will  be  especially  attracted  by  this 
work.  The  two  books  together  constitute  a  political  education."  —  Presby- 
terian Banner. 

"  Scholarly  in  character,  profound  in  treatment,  clear  in  its  presentation.  .  .  . 
Because  of  its  high  standard  of  merit,  there  is  little  wonder  that  it  has  been 
welcomed  by  so  many  American  readers."  —  Boston  Globe. 

"  It  stands  in  distinguished  isolation  by  reason  of  its  comprehensive  plan,  the 
masterly  way  in  which  the  plan  has  developed,  and  the  sympathetic  insight 
with  which  Mr.  Lowell  has  described  and  analyzed  the  spirit  in  which  Eng- 
lish people  work  their  institutions."  —  American  Historical  Review. 

"  The  reader  will  acknowledge  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  author  of  this  really 
remarkable  work,  not  only  for  its  wealth  of  learning  and  boldness  of  reason- 
ing, but  for  its  topical  arrangement  and  the  scholarly  simplicity  of  its  style." 
—  Literary  Digest. 

PUBLISHED    BY 

THE   MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


BY  WILLIAM  MACDONALD 

Professor  of  History  in  Brown  University 

Select  Charters  and  Other  Documents 

Illustrative  of  American  History,  1606-1775 

Cloth  ismo  $2.00  net 

"  This  volume  .  .  .  supplements  the  author's  previous  work,  entitled  '  Se- 
lect Documents  Illustrative  of  the  History  of  the  United  States,  1776-1861.' 
The  same  sound  judgment  has  been  shown  in  the  selection  and  the  editing  of 
the  state  papers,  and  the  work  is  essential  to  every  good  reference  library."  — 
The  Outlook. 

"  Professor  MacDonald  shows  good  judgment  in  his  selections,  and  his 
book  should  materially  assist  the  teaching  of  American  history.  ...  It  will 
be  a  great  convenience  everywhere."  —  The  Nation. 

Select  Documents 

Illustrative  of  the  History  of  the  United  States,  1776-1861 

Cloth.  izmo  $2.25  net 

"  It  is  a  valuable  book  to  students  of  American  history,  and,  indeed,  to  all 
persons  who  care  to  discuss  our  present  problems  in  their  historical  bearings. 
We  can  think  of  no  public  document,  from  the  promulgation  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Confederate  States, 
to  which  frequent  reference  is  made,  which  is  not  at  least  summarized  in  this 
volume.  The  summaries,  furthermore,  whether  of  judicial  decisions,  reports, 
treatises,  messages,  or  resolutions,  are  admirably  made.  It  is  an  invaluable 
book  for  every  reference  library."  —  The  Outlook. 

Select  Statutes  and  Other  Documents 

Illustrative  of  the  History  of  the  United  States,  1861-1898 

Cloth  i2mo  $2.00  net 

"The  political  and  civil  phases  of  the  war;  slavery  and  civil  rights;  recon- 
struction and  the  readmission  of  the  states;  legal  tender,  silver  coinage,  bank- 
ing, and  finance;  the  amendments  and  acts  relating  thereto;  naturalization, 
polygamy,  and  Chinese  exclusion;  the  election  of  senators;  the  electoral  count; 
the  presidential  succession;  and  recent  phases  of  expansion  —  these  subjects 
indicate  the  scope  and  importance  of  the  topics  selected.  Certain  notable 
presidential  messages,  like  the  Venezuelan  message  of  President  Cleveland  in 
1893,  are  included.  The  valuable  notes  and  references  preceding  each  docu- 
ment are  included  in  this  volume  as  in  the  others.  Professor  MacDonald's 
final  volume  sustains  the  merit  of  a  series  whose  usefulness  and  value  have  al- 
ready received  wide  recognition."  —  JAMES  A.  WOODBURN,  in  The  American 
Historical  Review. 

PUBLISHED    BY 

THE    MACMILLAN   COMPANY 

64-66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York 


1978 


\97085 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 


EC'D  HD 


DEC  13  '63 .. 


*  6"2A-20m-9,'63 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


